LfX^L. 


n 


B  56  . R64  1923 
Rohrbaugh,  Lewis  Guy,  b 
1884. 

Religious  philosophy 


s? 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/religiousphilosoOOrohr 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 

LEWIS  GUY  ROHRBAUGH,  b.d.,  ph.d. 


J 


RELIGIOUS 

PHILOSOPHY 


<4/  01 

LEWIS  GUY  ROHRBAUGH,  B.D.,  Ph.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGIOUS  EDUCATION 

DICKINSON  COLLEGE 


NEW 


YORK 


GEORGE  H.  DORAN  COMPANY 


COPYRIGHT,  1923, 

BY  GEORGE  H.  DORAN  COMPANY 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY.  II 


PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 


TO  HER  WHOSE  LIFE  HAS 
BEEN  SO  GENUINELY  REAL 


MY  MOTHER 


FOREWORD 


It  may  be  difficult  for  the  reader  to  determine 
whether  the  ultimate  purpose  of  this  volume  finds  its 
realization  primarily  in  the  field  of  philosophy,  science, 
or  religion.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is  clearly  stated 
in  saying  that  the  setting  forth  of  the  relationship 
which  exists  between  these  fields  has  been  the  com¬ 
pelling  motive  in  the  organization  of  the  following 
program.  Some  problems  have  been  selected  common 
to  both  religion  and  philosophy  and  in  working  at  their 
solution,  scientific  endorsement  has  been  continually 
sought,  thus  trying  to  unite  the  avenues  of  truth  as 
represented  by  heart,  head,  and  sense.  This  work, 
however,  is  written  mostly  in  the  language  of  phi¬ 
losophy. 

Our  position  is  that  truth  is  truth  wherever  met,  no 
matter  whether  the  approach  to  things  real  is  through 
philosophy,  science  or  religion.  Writers  in  the  field  of 
science  and  religion  have  built  independent  systems 
and  are  guiltily  responsible  for  a  prevailing  belief  on 
the  part  of  many  that  an  unbridgeable  gulf  flows  be¬ 
tween  the  two.  Biblical  truth  has  suffered  at  the  hands 
of  misinterpretations  while  science  has  been  slow  get¬ 
ting  its  start,  religious  dogmatism  being  in  no  small 
way  responsible  for  its  retardation.  We  maintain  that 
the  same  truth  permeates  both  and  inter-relates  them, 
and  in  working  at  this  problem  have  built  our  entire 


FOREWORD 


•  •  • 
vm 
• 

system  around  the  modern  energy  concept.  It  is  hoped 
that  the  following  work  will  make  its  contribution 
toward  bringing  together  these  two  important  fields 
of  thought — science  and  religion,  even  finding  in  phi¬ 
losophy  and  science  definite  confirmation  of  some  of 
the  important  truths  of  the  Christian  faith.  Giving 
religion  a  philosophical-scientific  relationship  to  truth 
is  by  no  means  amiss  in  this  new  day  of  readjustment. 

Not  only  the  average  reader  who  is  really  interested 
in  a  system  of  religious  philosophy  but  also  the  regular 
student  who  is  working  at  such  fundamental  problems 
as  creation,  God,  vitalism  and  mechanism,  immortality, 
life,  death,  evolution,  and  evil  will  probably  find  this 
volume  more  or  less  useful.  The  teacher  of  philosophy 
may  find  it  of  benefit  as  a  reference  work  when  deal¬ 
ing  with  the  general  problem  of  reality,  especially  when 
looking  for  a  spiritualistic  and  dynamic  emphasis. 

In  Part  III  we  give  a  chapter  to  the  problem  of  evil, 
conscious  of  the  fact  that  the  theory  presented  is  con¬ 
trary  to  a  prevalent  attitude  in  modern  thought.  It  is 
offered  as  a  compromise  between  two  extreme  positions 
— the  one  which  would  interpret  the  Genesis  representa¬ 
tion  literally,  the  other  which  would  place  the  responsi¬ 
bility  for  evil  squarely  upon  God,  who  at  the  same  time 
is  believed  to  be  all  wise  and  mighty.  The  theory  pre¬ 
sented  here  stands  ready  to  receive  its  share  of  criti¬ 
cism,  but  in  the  face  of  the  serious  conflict  in  present 
attitudes  will  hardly  be  compelled  to  bear  a  heavier 
burden  of  criticism  than  the  average  hypothesis  which 
attempts  to  explain  the  problem  of  evil.  In  the  spirit 
of  science  it  is  offered  as  an  over-belief,  but  those 
students  who  feel  that  the  Genesis  theory  is  funda - 


FOREWORD  ix 

mentally  right,  its  primary  lesson  being  to  teach  that 
some  irregularity  is  responsible  for  the  confusion  and 
misery  of  the  world,  may  find  in  this  presentation  a 
certain  degree  of  genuine  satisfaction. 

L.  G.  R. 


Carlisle ,  Pa, 


t 


*• 


i. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

PART  I:  DYNAMICS  IN  SCIENCE  AND 
PHILOSOPHY 

CHAPTER 

I  ENERGY  AS  REALITY . 1 5 

II  THE  DYNAMIC  TREND  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF 

THOUGHT . 30 

III  THE  DYNAMIC  TREND  IN  MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  53 

PART  II :  ENERGY  AS  A  SPIRITUAL  FORCE 

I  THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  ENERGY  .  65 

II  HISTORICAL  SUPPORT  FOR  THE  SPIRITUAL 

THEORY . 76 

III  THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION — CONCLUDED  .  9 2 


PART  III:  ENERGY  AS  AN  ATTRACTIVE 
FORCE 


I 

THE  ATTRACTIVE  PRINCIPLE  . 

• 

• 

.  117 

II 

ASCENDING  PROGRESS  . 

• 

• 

.  I32 

III 

DISORGANIZED  SPIRITUAL  ENERGY 

• 

• 

I46 

IV 

POSITIVE  VALUES  .... 

• 

• 

.  l6l 

Part  I:  DYNAMICS  IN  SCIENCE  AND 

PHILOSOPHY 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


Chapter  I 

ENERGY  AS  REALITY 

Upon  all  sides  to-day  we  hear  emphasis  put  upon 
the  energy  concept  in  philosophy.  Dynamism  has  super¬ 
seded  materialism.  Activism,  voluntarism,  pragma¬ 
tism,  and  philosophies  of  this  active  type  are  coming 
more  and  more  to  take  the  place  of  the  older  systems 
of  mechanism.  Students  in  philosophy  are  compelled 
to  recognize  the  significant  place  which  such  systems 
as  those  of  Leibnitz,  Bergson,  Ostwald,  etc.,  are  hold¬ 
ing  in  the  field  of  modern  thought.  If  Leibnitz’  phi¬ 
losophy  were  to  be  re-stated  to-day  from  the  stand¬ 
point  of  modern  scientific  thought  and  terminology,  it 
would  probably  be  termed  a  system  of  Energism. 
With  Bergson  life  is  one  continuous  process  of  Becom¬ 
ing,  and  fundamental  in  this  process  is  the  guiding 
agent  which  he  calls  the  vital  impetus.  So  active  and 
vital  is  this  inner  principle  that  it  would  seem  impos¬ 
sible  to  think  of  Bergson’s  philosophy  out  of  relation 
to  the  energy  concept.  With  Ostwald,  energy  is  the 
primary  concept;  everything  that  exists  is  but  a  part 
of  a  great  system  of  energies.  Such  energetic  concep¬ 
tions  as  these  sound  the  keynote  to  modern  philosophi- 

15 


16 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


cal  thought  and  receive  genuine  support  from  recent 
scientific  discoveries. 

In  physical  science  we  are  told  that  matter,  under 
the  scrutiny  of  experimental  physics,  has  resolved  it¬ 
self  into  energy.  When  asked  what  this  ultimate  and 
final  energy  is,  we  are  sometimes  referred  to  another 
concept,  that  of  electricity.  And  inasmuch  as  we  shall 
endeavor  to  interpret  reality  in  terms  of  energy  and 
make  a  critical  inquiry  into  the  energy  concept  in  its 
qualitative  aspects,  it  becomes  imperative  therefore  at 
this  stage  of  philosophical  inquiry  to  examine  into  this 
concept  of  energy  and  determine,  if  we  can,  its  philoso¬ 
phical  import. 

Philosophers  have  been  concerned  with  the  problem 
of  reality  since  the  earliest  history  of  thought,  and  to 
the  question,  What  is  reality  ?  many  and  varied  answers 
have  been  given.  We  find  that  in  the  approach  to  this 
problem  the  scientific  understanding  of  the  ancients 
presents  an  interesting  contrast  with  that  of  to-day. 
Instead  of  the  four  elements  of  Empedocles — earth, 
air,  fire,  and  water — more  than  ninety  elements  have 
been  found,  entering  into  the  make-up  of  the  earth  and 
all  existing  objects.  “The  spectroscope  tells  us  that  in 
the  most  distant  stars  the  same  elements  exist  as  here, 
and  that  the  periods  of  vibrations  which  cause  them 
to  emit  light  are  identical  with  those  of  their  terrestrial 
representatives.’ ’  All  material  things  can  be  analyzed 
and  resolved  into  these  ninety  elements. 

In  the  philosophy  of  the  early  days  we  meet  two 
opposing  schools  of  thought — one  teaching  that  every¬ 
thing  is  and  nothing  becomes;  the  other  declaring  that 
nothing  is  and  everything  is  in  a  process  of  becoming. 


ENERGY  AS  REALITY 


17 


Heracleitus,  representing  the  latter  school,  believed  all 
things  to  be  in  a  state  of  flux;  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  rest.  In  this  he  anticipated  a  fundamental  principle 
in  modern  science,  for  science  to-day  holds  that  matter 
is  made  up  of  a  countless  number  of  moving  particles. 
In  the  decomposition  and  changes  peculiar  to  inorganic 
matter,  and  in  the  myriads  of  living  cells  composing 
organic  matter  we  find  that  there  are  no  two  successive 
moments  when  any  single  particle  of  substance  fails  to 
experience  some  genuine  change. 

BRIEF  STATEMENT  CONCERNING  THE  ATOMIC  THEORY 

As  we  proceed  with  our  task  it  becomes  evident  that 
a  study  of  the  atomic  theory,  which  has  to  do  with  the 
organization  of  these  little  moving  particles,  is  funda¬ 
mental  to  any  treatment  which  might  be  made  of  matter 
and  any  search  for  facts  which  have  to  do  with  ulti¬ 
mate  reality.  It  is  a  long  road,  however,  from  Demo¬ 
critus,  the  first  real  exponent  of  Atomism,  to  the 
present  time,  and  many  and  varied  have  been  the 
interpretations  made  of  this  system  along  the 
way. 

With  Democritus  the  atom  is  simply  a  hard  little 
body  moving  mechanically  through  space.  The  atoms 
coming  together  are  responsible  for  all  changes.  By 
this  method  in  his  system  of  materialism  he  would  en¬ 
deavor  to  explain  all  phenomena,  from  the  most  simple 
external  occurrences  to  the  deepest  experiences  of  the 
mental  life. 

A  new  light  was  thrown  on  the  atomic  theory  when 
Newton’s  law  of  gravitation  took  its  place  in  the  world 


18 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


of  science.  Instead  of  the  atoms  clashing  at  random 
and  being  held  together  in  a  chance  way  by  means  of 
their  jagged  surfaces,  the  element  of  attraction  was 
introduced.  “It  was  natural  that,  having  explained 
the  cosmical,  and  subsequently  many  terrestrial  phe¬ 
nomena,  successfully  by  the  formula  of  attraction, 
Newton  himself,  and  still  more  Laplace  and  his  school, 
should  have  attempted  the  explanation  of  molecular 
phenomena  by  similar  methods.  The  astronomical 
view  spread  into  molecular  physics.  Newton  himself 
made  use  of  the  notion  of  molecular  attraction — i.e., 
of  attraction  existing  only  at  very  small  distances — to 
explain  the  refraction  and  inflection  of  light  passing 
from  empty  space,  or  from  the  atmosphere,  into  or  in 
the  neighborhood  of  solid  bodies.”  1 

Boscovich  was  among  the  first  to  lose  faith  in  a  de¬ 
pendence  on  the  impact  of  the  atoms;  nor  could  he  be 
satisfied  with  allowing  them  extension.  He  felt  that 
the  fundamental  essence  of  matter  was  to  be  found  in 
atom  points,  situated  in  space,  from  which,  as  a  basis, 
repulsive  forces  operated. 

Dalton,  who  gave  to  each  atom  a  definite  weight, 
was  responsible  for  the  establishment  of  the  atomic 
theory  of  the  modern  day.  He  taught  that  the  small 
particles  in  all  bodies  are  held  together  by  an  attractive 
force,  and  that  there  is  also  present  and  operating  in 
matter  a  repulsive  force.  This  introducing  into  the 
theory  the  element  of  forces  was  carried  even  further 
by  such  men  as  Fechner,  Moigno,  and  Faraday,  who 
would  make  the  atoms  simple  centers  of  force,  which 

1  Merz,  History  of  European  Thought  in  the  Nineteenth  Cen¬ 
tury,  Vol.  i,  pp.  354-356. 


ENERGY  AS  REALITY  19 

closely  approaches  a  system  of  dynamism  and  paves 
the  way  to  the  energy  concept. 

In  the  analysis  of  substance  according  to  the  atomic 
theory,  the  smallest  unit  we  meet  is  the  molecule  which 
can  be  further  divided  into  atoms.  In  HN03  we  have 
a  molecule  of  nitric  acid,  containing  one  atom  of  hydro¬ 
gen,  one  of  nitrogen,  and  three  of  oxygen.  The  mole¬ 
cules  differ  according  to  the  number  of  atoms  consti¬ 
tuting  them.  The  atoms  of  the  same  element  have 
been  considered  invariable  in  size,  having  a  definite 
and  fixed  weight.  It  is  believed  to-day,  however,  that 
the  so-called  atomic  weights  are  merely  averages. 
Radium,  thorium,  and  uranium  have  the  heaviest  atoms 
and  hydrogen  the  lightest.  “We  are  as  certain  of  the 
existence  of  these  atoms  and  of  their  uniformity  and 
invariability  as  if  we  could  count  and  measure  them. 
Indeed  they  are  actually  counted  in  certain  cases  of 
radioactivity.”  2 

THE  ELECTRONIC  THEORY 

The  atomic  theory  has  been  a  very  profitable  instru¬ 
ment  in  the  hands  of  science  for  a  long  time,  but  ac¬ 
quired  knowledge  now  enables  us  to  make  an  analysis 
of  Nature  which  transcends  the  limitations  of  the  atom. 
Just  as  the  molecule  of  substance  was  divided  and  the 
atom  made  the  smallest  measure  of  matter,  so  the 
atom  to-day  is  analyzed  and  found  to  be  composed  of 
still  smaller  particles. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  pieces  of  work  accom¬ 
plished  by  science  in  recent  years  has  been  this  success- 

2  Soddy,  Matter  and  Energy,  p.  55- 


20 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


ful  analysis  of  the  atom.  As  the  smallest  unit  of  mat¬ 
ter  entering  into  the  make-up  of  the  elements,  the  atom 
has  lost  its  prestige,  and  science  to-day  is  thinking  in 
terms  of  the  electron  instead.  It  is  the  development  of 
the  electronic  theory  which  has  not  only  popularized 
the  energy  concept  but  given  it  a  well  established  place 
in  modern  scientific  discovery  and  thought.  It  has 
confirmed  the  long-held  belief  in  the  presence  of  a 
dynamic  force  in  Nature,  and  seems  to  show  that  ulti¬ 
mate  reality  itself  is  identical  with  what  science  has 
been  calling  electricity,  but  now  looks  upon  as  some 
form  of  energy. 

According  to  Rutherford  each  atom  is  believed  to 
be  like  a  little  solar  system,  being  composed  wholly  of 
charges  of  negative  electricity,  electrons,  revolving  “in 
regular  orbits”  3  about  a  core  or  nucleus  which  is  a 
charge  of  positive  electricity.  More  recent  thought, 
however,  is  inclined  to  believe  that  the  electrons  are 
vibrating  in  certain  regions,  rather  than  revolving 
about  a  nucleus,  within  the  atom.  Motion  results  as 
the  electrons  repel  each  other  and  in  their  activities 
they  are  held  in  balance  by  the  attraction  of  the  posi¬ 
tive  unit.  It  is  thought  that  the  negative  charges  are 
equal  to  the  free  positive  charge  of  the  nucleus  and  in 
this  fact  the  atom  realizes  a  possible  equilibrium. 

Some  writers  consider  the  electron  to  be  a  unit  of 
electricity  whether  negative  or  positive.  For  our  pres¬ 
ent  purpose  we  shall  call  only  the  unit  of  negative 
charge  an  electron.  The  electrons  of  the  atom  are  all 
the  same,  no  matter  from  whatever  element’s  atoms 
they  come.  They  are  constituents  of  every  atom,  are 

3  Gibson,  Scientific  Ideas  of  To-day,  p.  53. 


ENERGY  AS  REALITY  21 

real  electricity,  which  flowing,  constitute  electric  cur¬ 
rent. 

Concerning  the  nucleus  of  the  atom,  science  does  not 
have  full  knowledge.  We  are  sure,  however,  that  it  is 
electricity  and  predominantly  positive.  In  this  nucleus 
have  been  found  electrons  which  under  certain  condi¬ 
tions  are  set  free.  This  core  or  positive  charge  is  less 
than  one  ten  thousandth  the  diameter  of  the  atom  and 
numerically  equal  to  one  half  the  atomic  weight,4 
while  “the  whole  atom  is  perhaps  one  hundred  thou¬ 
sand  times  as  large  in  diameter  as  the  electrons,”  5 

The  velocity  of  the  electrons  in  their  flight  is  almost 
inconceivable;  thus  they  occupy  but  small  space  and 
constitute  a  solid.  The  immense  possible  velocity  is 
suggested  in  the  statement  that  “the  velocity  of  the 
electron  when  impelled  by  strong  electric  force  may 
reach  sixty  thousand  miles  per  second  when  shot 
through  a  vacuum,  the  better  the  vacuum  the  higher 
the  speed.”  6 

Under  certain  conditions  atoms  gain  and  lose  elec¬ 
trons.  Sometimes  the  negative  charges  predominate 
and  sometimes  the  positive,  according  to  whether  the 
atom  has  taken  on  or  given  off  electrons.  Some  ele¬ 
ments  will  give  up  electrons  quicker  than  others.  The 
stronger  a  metal,  the  stronger  the  tendency  to  give 
up  electrons  when  exposed  to  the  impact  of  light.  The 
latest  theory  of  color  is  based  on  the  principle  of  the 
looseness  of  the  electrons  in  the  atom.  The  weight  it¬ 
self  of  an  element  is  determined  by  the  electrons. 
Thompson  says  “the  atomic  weight  of  an  element  is 

4  Stewart,  The  Homiletic  Review,  Oct.,  1914. 

5  Mills,  The  Realities  of  Modern  Science,  p.  90. 

6  Gibson,  Scientific  Ideas  of  To-day. 


22 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


proportionate  to  the  number  of  electrons  contained  in 
the  atoms.”  So  in  hydrogen,  the  lightest  atom,  we 
find  but  one  electron  and  in  uranium,  the  heaviest 
known  atom,  there  are  ninety-two.  To-day  then,  sci¬ 
ence  does  not  have  to  stop  with  the  atom,  but  can  take 
that  more  ultimate  particle,  the  electron,  as  a  work¬ 
ing  basis. 

This  brings  us  safely  to  the  place  of  assumption  that 
electricity  is  a  common,  pervading  factor  peculiar  to 
the  finest  particles  in  all  matter,  and  the  electron  as  a 
unit  of  energy  presents  itself  as  a  general  medium  of 
permeation  running  through  all  forms  of  material  exis¬ 
tence,  animate  and  inanimate.  This  is  given  partial 
confirmation  in  the  fact  that  electrical  excitation  can 
very  often  get  definite  responses  from  animals,  plants, 
and  inorganic  substances,  “The  everyday  laboratory 
faith  of  the  physicist  is  now  not  in  visible  material  as 
formerly  understood,  but  in  the  invisible  thing  we  call 
electricity.  He  has  repudiated  the  atom  as  a  unit,  ob¬ 
serving  in  it  a  wonderful  and  complex  system  of  un¬ 
ending  interest  and  great  experimental  possibilities, 
and  has  accepted  the  atom  of  electricity  as  the  basis 
for  his  scientific  belief.  .  .  .  The  reality  of  matter,  as 
formerly  conceived,  is  now  abandoned,  and  the  invisi¬ 
ble  becomes  the  everyday  reality  of  the  scientific 
laboratory.”  7 

As  we  now  come  face  to  face  with  Nature  in  its  ul¬ 
timate  analysis,  reality  itself,  we  come  face  to  face  with 
what,  in  commercial  as  well  as  scientific  language,  has 
been  called  electricity.  In  this  we  foresee  meanings 

7  Stewart,  The  Homiletic  Review,  Oct.,  1914. 


ENERGY  AS  REALITY 


23 


and  possibilities  more  far-reaching  than  was  ever 
dreamed.  And  in  dealing  with  this  dynamic  some¬ 
thing,  science  is  not  willing  any  longer  to  talk  in  terms 
of  what  has  been  known  as  the  electricity  concept  but 
endeavors  to  broaden  and  deepen  its  hold  on  truth  and 
proceeds  in  this  field  of  inquiry  in  the  name  of  the 
energy  concept. 

THE  ENERGY  CONCEPT  AND  COSMIC  EVOLUTION 

A1  study  of  cosmic  evolution  confirms  the  belief  that 
there  is  and  has  been  an  all-prevailing  something  more 
fundamental  than  electricity,  which  something  is 
energy,  and  which  is  manifesting  itself  to-day  as  elec¬ 
tricity.  When  we  find  the  dynamic  conception  of  real¬ 
ity  prevailing  in  much  of  the  best  philosophy  of  all 
ages,  in  modern  psychology,  and  even  in  to-day’s  phil¬ 
osophy  of  life,  it  is  not  strange  that  in  its  progress 
toward  ultimate  truth  modern  science  should  be  con¬ 
firming  this  interpretation  by  its  strong  and  positive 
representation  of  the  concept  of  energy.  It  seems  nec¬ 
essary  then  for  us  to  “reverse  our  thought  in  the  search 
for  causes  and  take  steps  toward  an  energy  conception 
of  the  origin  of  life  and  energy  conception  of  the  na¬ 
ture  of  heredity.”  8 

As  intimated  in  the  foregoing,  the  history  of  the 
earth’s  evolution  is  fundamentally  the  history  of  the 
changes  in  forms  of  energy.  Four  of  these  have  pri¬ 
marily  manifested  themselves  in  this  process  of  cosmic 
development — heat,  light,  chemical  affinity,  and  elec¬ 
tricity.  According  to  MacFarlane,9  in  the  very  primi- 

8  Osborn,  The  Origin  and  Evolution  of  Life,  p.  io. 

9  MacFarlane,  The  Causes  and  Course  of  Organic  Evolution. 


24j 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


tive  state  of  the  earth  when  everything  was  in  a  nebu¬ 
lous  10  state,  energy  manifested  itself  as  heat.  The  in¬ 
tensity  of  the  heat  must  have  been  extreme  “in  this 
gaseous  state  of  the  earth  and  according  to  Arldt  a 
temperature  of  at  least  15000c  may  have  existed.’' 11 
Associated  with  the  intense  heat  was  a  corresponding 
rapidity  in  the  motion  of  the  constituents  of  this  fiery 
mass;  and  in  the  development  from  this  gaseous  state 
the  degree  of  motion  of  these  particles  increased,  pro¬ 
portionate  to  the  condensation  of  heat  which  took 
place.  Here  then  in  the  condensation  of  heat  energy 
we  meet  with  motion  and  its  cause  as  first  experienced 
in  the  cosmic  order. 

In  the  gradual  change  from  the  gaseous  to  the  liquid 
state,  instead  of  energy  primarily  manifesting  itself  as 
heat,  it  began  to  assert  itself  as  light.  Then,  as  the 
energy  continued  its  condensation,  with  an  increased 
activity  and  higher  degree  of  organization  of  the  atoms 
we  find  that  energy  expressed  itself  as  “chemical  af¬ 
finity.”  Thus  as  the  earth  progressed  in  its  cooling 
process,  associated  with  which  was  a  definite  progress 
in  the  organization  of  the  centers  of  energy,  bodies 
began  to  come  into  definite  forms  of  existence,  reach¬ 
ing  the  highest  and  best  condition  in  the  solid  state 
when  energy  expressed  itself  primarily  as  electricity. 
Thus  when  we  study  the  transformation  of  energy 


10  In  suggesting  this  program  we  are  fully  aware  that  science 
in  America,  especially  geology  and  biology,  is  giving  precedence 
to  the  Planetesimal  Hypothesis  as  over  against  the  Nebular 
Hypothesis.  But  even  so,  this  does  not  at  all  controvert  our 
theory  as  to  the  part  energy  has  played  in  the  process  of  cosmic 
evolution. 

11  MacFarlane,  The  Causes  and  Course  of  Organic  Evolution , 
p.  21,  passim. 


ENERGY  AS  REALITY 


25 


through  the  gaseous,  liquid,  and  solid  states,  from 
original  heat  and  light  to  electricity,  we  are  not  sur¬ 
prised  to  see  electricity  quickly  and  easily  taking  the 
forms  of  heat  and  light,  harmonizing  somewhat  with 
Fan  veil’s  view  that  electricity  is  a  “highly  condensed 
or  latent  heat.”  As  Osborn  would  say,  it  is  but  the 
old  forms  of  energy  taking  new  directions. 

According  to  our  hypothesis  then,  in  the  ultimate 
analysis  of  all  things  we  meet  energy.  In  it  wonder¬ 
ful  possibilities  and  potentialities  are  to  be  found.  It 
is  the  Alpha  and  Omega  of  all  forms  of  existence,  the 
different  bodies  being  but  different  expressions  of  the 
same  thing.  Haeckel  confirms  this  in  saying  that 
“mechanical  and  chemical  energy,  sound  and  heat,  light 
and  electricity  are  mutually  convertible;  they  seem  to 
be  but  different  modes  of  one  and  the  same  funda¬ 
mental  force  or  energy.12  That  energy  is  a  common 
principle  underlying  all  existence,  organic  and  inor¬ 
ganic,  is  also  supported  by  Osborn:  “No  form  of 
energy  has  thus  far  been  discovered  in  living  sub¬ 
stances  which  is  peculiar  to  them  and  not  derived  from 
the  inorganic  world.”  13  “Thus  the  evolution  of  life 
may  be  written  in  terms  of  invisible  energy  as  it  has 
long  since  been  written  in  terms  of  visible  forms.”  14 

HE  ENERGY  CONCEPT  AND  THE  UNITY  OF  NATURE 

In  the  unity  of  Nature  we  have  a  situation  which 
seemingly  is  best  explained  by  the  presence  of  some 

12  Haeckel,  Riddle  of  the  Universe,  p.  254.  (Translated  by 
McCabe.) 

18  Osborn,  The  Origin  and  Evolution  of  Life,  p.  12. 

14  Ibid.,  p.  1 7. 


26 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


universal,  dynamic  essence  such  as  energy;  and  the 
more  progress  we  make  in  our  understanding  of  Na¬ 
ture  the  more  we  are  impressed  with  the  harmonious 
interactions  and  relationships  existing  between  Na¬ 
ture’s  constituents.  Marvin  feels  that  if  we  could  see 
Nature  through  perfect  eyes  all  seeming  discords 
would  disappear.  He  says  “the  doctrine  of  evolution 
has  made  the  forms  of  animal  and  plant  life,  the  insti¬ 
tutions,  customs,  and  languages  and  arts  of  different 
peoples  all  seem  but  different  chapters  in  one  connected 
story  of  earthly  life.  In  short,  increased  knowledge 
reveals  increased  interconnection  and  complete  knowl¬ 
edge  would  reveal  complete  interconnection.”  15  Since 
organic  and  inorganic  bodies  are  composed  of  the  same 
ingredients,  all  coming  from  the  same  elements,  it  is 
very  natural  to  look  upon  the  world  as  one  great  uni¬ 
tary  whole. 

Tagore,  the  poet-philosopher  of  India,  protests 
against  the  idea  that  certain  parts  of  Nature  are  set 
off  from  the  rest.  He  advocates  a  real  unity  of  Nature 
in  saying  that  “in  the  west  the  prevalent  feeling  is  that 
Nature  belongs  exclusively  to  inanimate  things  and 
to  beasts,  that  there  is  a  sudden,  unaccountable  break 
where  human  nature  begins.  According  to  it,  every¬ 
thing  that  is  law  in  the  scale  of  beings  is  merely  Na¬ 
ture,  and  whatever  has  the  stamp  of  perfection  on  it, 
intellectual  or  moral,  is  human  nature.  It  is  like  di¬ 
viding  the  bud  and  the  blossom  into  two  separate 
categories  and  putting  their  grace  to  the  credit  of  two 
different  and  antithetical  principles.”  16 

15  Marvin,  A  First  Book  in  Metaphysics,  p.  92. 

16  Tagore,  Sadhana — The  Realization  of  Life,  pp.  6-7. 


ENERGY  AS  REALITY 


27 


Not  only  no  man  liveth  unto  himself,  but  no  thing 
liveth  unto  itself.  There  is  a  common  chord  running 
through  all  life.  The  interests  of  all  forms  of  exist¬ 
ing  life  are  mutual.  The  tender,  sympathetic  strain 
common  to  all  life  is  necessarily  based  upon  a  reciproc¬ 
ity  in  relationships. 

Even  between  the  lower  animals  and  man  a  tender 
understanding  is  often  experienced,  and  in  many  cases 
the  responses  obtained  from  them  are  almost  incredi¬ 
ble.  The  pipe  organ  not  only  thrills  us  as  human  be¬ 
ings  but  gets  a  sympathetic  response  from  inanimate 
objects  as  well.  We  love  to  commune  with  Nature 
but  the  reality  of  this  experience  would  vanish  if  we 
should  try  to  make  it  a  one-sided  affair  on  our  part. 
Being  human  we  best  understand  man’s  feelings  in  re¬ 
lation  to  other  existing  things  but  that  does  not  say 
that  he  contributes  more  than  his  proportionate  share 
of  appreciation  to  the  unity  and  harmony  of  Nature. 
In  this  fact  of  mutual  relationships  there  must  be  some 
element  of  reality  upon  which  these  interactions  can 
ride  back  and  forth.  We  find  this  principle  of  reality 
in  energy  into  which  man  and  beast  and  clod  can  be 
resolved. 

Behind  this  attitude  modern  thought  seems  to  be 
arraying  itself.  De  Tunzelmann  says  “the  observed 
correlation  of  mental  and  material  phenomena  defin¬ 
itely  demonstrates  the  power  of  the  human  mind  and 
the  minds  of  other  living  beings,  to  influence  and  be 
influenced  by,  changes  in  the  distribution  of  energy  in 
their  material  environment.”  17 

17  de  Tunzelmann,  The  Electrical  Theory  and  Problem  of  the 
Universe,  p.  471. 


28 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


Some  would  go  so  far  as  to  say  “physical  and  psych¬ 
ical  processes  depend  so  on  one  another  that  it  is  pos¬ 
sible  to  find  in  energy  not  only  a  possible  unifying  of 
Nature  but  an  occasion  for  an  efficient  and  moving 
cause.”  Energy  seems  to  be  established  as  the  funda¬ 
mental  means  of  interaction  and  relationship  between 
mind  and  matter,  mind  and  mind,  and  matter  and  mat¬ 
ter.  Perry  would  get  to  the  heart  of  the  whole  ques¬ 
tion  and  says:  “Instead  of  conceiving  a  matter  that 
manifests  itself  in  forms  and  motions,  why  not  stop 
at  force  and  invest  it  with  finality  and  universality?”  18 

Perhaps  de  Tunzelmann  comes  out  strongest  in 
championing  the  cause  of  energy  as  the  ultimate  basic 
element  in  all  matter.  He  says  we  cannot  conceive  of 
a  substance  from  which  the  uniform  distribution  of 
energy  has  been  abstracted.  Its  very  life  would  be 
taken  away  if  the  energy  element  were  eliminated.  He 
seems  to  sum  up  his  attitude  in  saying,  “All  the  phe¬ 
nomena  of  the  material  universe  may  therefore  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  arising  solely  from  changes  in  energy  dis¬ 
tribution.  That  is  to  say,  energy  is  the  sole  ultimate 
phenomenal  basis  of  matter.”  19 

It  is  very  evident  then  that  in  recent  years  a  great 
change  has  taken  place  in  the  field  of  science  due  to  the 
development  of  the  electronic  theory  of  matter.  In 
fact,  we  have  come  to  that  place  where  it  can  be  said 
that  “the  old  concept  of  stuff  has  been  completely  dis¬ 
placed  by  the  new  concept  of  radiant  energy.”  20  Thus 
it  seems  that  the  old  scientist-philosophers,  some  of 

18  Perry,  Present  Philosophical  Tendencies,  p.  70. 

19  de  Tunzelmann,  The  Electrical  Theory  and  Problem  of  the 
Universe,  p.  470. 

20  Carr,  Preface  to  Bergson’s  Mind-Energy,  p.  vi. 


ENERGY  AS  REALITY 


29 


whose  systems  we  shall  review  in  the  next  chapter,  in 
teaching  the  presence  in  matter  of  a  dynamic  element, 
were  feeling  after  the  real  truth  in  the  situation.  For 
modern  science  not  only  confirms  this  attitude  but,  as 
has  been  suggested,  goes  still  further,  and  by  satisfac¬ 
tory  experiments  has  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
“there  is  no  difference  between  matter  and  energy”  21 
and  that  the  world  in  its  ultimate  essence,  reality  itself, 
is  energy. 


21  Wendt,  Lectures. 


Chapter  II 


THE  DYNAMIC  TREND  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF 

THOUGHT 

As  suggested  in  our  first  chapter  the  dynamic  con¬ 
ception  of  the  world  is  not  at  all  new,  and  the  attitude 
of  modern  science  toward  the  energy  concept  has  a 
strong  background  of  support  in  the  energetic  concep¬ 
tion  of  reality  so  evident  in  the  history  of  thought. 
We  shall  now  undertake  as  our  immediate  task  to  pass 
in  review  those  thinkers,  ancient  and  modern,  who 
have  dwelt  upon  the  dynamic  aspect  of  reality. 

$T2I2 

The  men  of  the  early  Ionian  school  were  the  first 
to  try  to  get  into  the  heart  of  Nature  and  find  out 
what  is  the  abiding  element  in  all  changing  things — 
that  common  substance  from  which  all  things  come 
and  into  which  they  pass.1  To  understand  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  these  early  Greek  thinkers  it  is  necessary  to 
understand  the  meaning  of  cpvcns  as  used  by  them,  for 
this  seems  to  constitute  the  source  and  backbone  of 
their  philosophy. 

In  the  philosophy  of  these  writers  we  find  cpvaiS 
(Physis)  to  be  a  fiery,  living,  moving,  ultimate  essence 
permeating  all  things.  From  it,  which  knows  no  be- 

1  Bakewell’s  Source  Book  in  Philosophy,  p.  I. 

30 


HISTORY  OF  THOUGHT 


31 


ginning  or  end,  through  the  media  of  water,  air,  and 
fire,  by  means  of  its  own  self-activity,  have  come  all 
things,  souls,  gods,  the  world  itself.  then,  the 

substratum  and  essence  of  all  bodies,2 3  is  a  vitalistic, 
self-producing  element  from  whose  eternal  mobility 
and  life  all  existing  forms  receive  impulses  to  activity, 
as  it  constantly  plays  the  role  of  an  urging,  guiding, 
and  determining  factor.  To  Anaximander  have  been 
ascribed  these  words :  “dOavarov  yap  xai  avooXedpov 
nspiex^iy  Q07tai/Ta  xai  navta  Kvfiepvdv 3  This  ulti¬ 
mate  essence  then  is  not  only  living  and  free  but  also 
divine. 


HYLOZOISM 

The  first  philosophy  which  will  be  taken  up  is  that 
of  the  hylozoists  as  represented  by  Thales,  Anaxi¬ 
mander,  Anaximenes,  and  Heracleitus,  in  which  is 
prominent  the  idea  that  the  whole  world  is  a  living 
being  and  that  all  matter  is  moving;  living  matter  and 
moving  matter  being  identical.  All  material  elements 
of  Nature  are  related  in  a  common  life.  In  this  system 
we  find  evinced  the  belief  that  the  universe  is  animated 
by  an  inner,  fiery,  vital  principle  which  operates  as  a 
qualitatively  psychic  factor.  This  conception  of  an 
inner,  moving  principle  of  unity  appears  early  among 
Greek  thinkers,  and  naturally  the  question  arose,  what 
matter  is  most  moving,  most  alive?  What  is  this  ulti¬ 
mate  reality  which  affords  a  basis  for  all  moving  and 


2  Veazie,  Studies  in  the  History  of  Ideas,  Ch.  II,  passim. 

3  “Immortal  and  indestructible,  surrounds  all  and  directs  all.” 
(Fairbanks,  The  First  Philosophers  of  Greece,  pp.  8-9.) 


32 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


changing,  and  which  continues  to  exist  after  the 
changes  occur? 

In  answer  to  this  question  Thales  replied  that  it  was 
water,  seeing  that  moisture  was  very  essential  in  animal 
and  vegetable  life;  also  perceiving  it  to  be  very  subtle 
and  versatile,  appearing  in  the  forms  of  a  solid,  liquid, 
and  vapor.  He  felt  that  the  plasticity  of  matter  fur¬ 
nished  the  possibility  for  everything  to  change,  through 
water  as  the  medium;  all  things  have  their  origin  in 
water  and  go  back  into  water  again.  The  active  vi¬ 
tality  of  matter  so  impressed  Thales  that  he  taught  the 
existence  of  a  world  soul,  and  that  a  divine  mind  was 
constantly  at  work.  He  would  say  according  to  Aris¬ 
totle:  “All  things  are  full  of  gods.  The  magnet  is 
alive ;  for  it  has  the  power  of  moving  iron.”  4  Thales’ 
water,  “the  soul  substance,  possesses  a  superhuman 
mana,  a  daemonic  energy  distinct  from  the  natural 
properties  of  the  water.”  5 

Plato  quotes  Thales  as  saying:  “Is  there  any  one 
who  acknowledges  this  and  yet  holds  that  all  things  are 
not  full  of  gods?”  “Its  motion  and  its  power  of 
generating  things  other  than  itself  are  due  to  its  life 
(tpvx g) ,  an  inward,  spontaneous  principle  of  activ¬ 
ity.”  6  Thus  in  the  hylozoism  of  Thales  we  have  a 
dynamic  conception  of  Nature  which  is  inseparable 
from  the  modern  energy  concept. 

Anaximander  also  was  keenly  conscious  of  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  an  unlimited,  active,  vital  force  in  matter,  but 

4  Quoted  from  Burnet’s  Early  Greek  Philosophy,  p.  48. 

5  Quoted  from  Cornford’s  From  Religion  to  Philosophy,  p.  135. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  128. 


HISTORY  OF  THOUGHT 


33 


he  did  not  give  it  the  name  of  an  element  such  as  water. 
He  called  his  the  Unlimited  or  Infinite  which  is  not 
only  unlimited  and  infinite  but  is  “without  beginning, 
indestructible  and  immortal.”  This  dynamic,  inner  life 
surging  through  matter  is  endowed  by  Anaximander 
with  the  possibility  of  “encompassing  and  guiding  all 
things.”  We  find  Theophrastus  saying  that  “Anaxi¬ 
mander  .  .  .  said  that  the  material  cause  and  first  ele¬ 
ment  of  things  was  the  Infinite,  he  being  the  first  to 
introduce  this  name  for  the  material  cause.  He  says 
it  is  neither  water  nor  any  other  of  the  so-called  ele¬ 
ments,  but  a  substance  different  from  them  which  is 
infinite,  from  which  arise  all  the  heavens  and  all  the 
worlds  within  them.  .  .  .  He  says  that  this  is  eternal 
and  ageless  and  that  it  encompasses  all  the  worlds  .  .  . 
and  besides  this  there  was  an  eternal  motion,  in  the 
course  of  which  was  brought  about  the  origin  of  the 
worlds.”  7 

Anaximenes,  continuing  the  same  dynamic  trend  of 
thought,  said  that  air,  with  an  inner  vitality  and  force 
peculiar  to  itself,  was  the  underlying  and  pervading 
principle  in  everything.  Air  is  continually  in  motion 
and  has  the  same  relation  to  the  world  as  man’s  soul 
has  to  his  body.  According  to  Theophrastus,  Anaxi¬ 
menes  says:  “Just  as  our  soul,  being  air,  holds  us  to¬ 
gether,  so  do  breath  and  air  encompass  the  whole 
world.” 

7  Quoted  from  Burnet’s  Early  Greek  Philosophy,  pp.  54-55. 


34 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


HERACLEITUS 

In  Heracleitus  also  we  meet  with  a  remarkable  antic¬ 
ipation  of  the  modern  energetic  attitude  toward  real¬ 
ity.  In  his  philosophy  he  reaches  forward  to  a  funda¬ 
mental  principle  in  modern  science,  teaching  that  every¬ 
thing  moves;  everything  is  in  a  state  of  flux.  Noth¬ 
ing  abides;  all  things  in  Nature  are  changing  into  one 
another — are  in  a  constant  process  of  becoming.  He 
called  his  primary  cosmic  substance,  fire.  It  is  not 
what  we  mean  by  ordinary  fire  but  a  something  which 
changes  into  all  things  and  into  which  all  things  can 
be  transformed.  It  so  permeates  the  last  iota  of  all 
substance  that  in  all  matter  there  is  the  “ever-living 
fire.”  These  changing  processes,  which  are  expres¬ 
sions  of  a  restless  vitality ,  are  fateful,  rational 
and  just.  Thus  the  world  is  explained  in  terms 
of  a  cosmic  substance,  a  transforming  force,  fire,  which 
continually  burns  but  never  burns  out;  man  himself 
being  a  spark  of  fire  struck  off  from,  and  at  death  be¬ 
comes  lost  in  the  great  cosmic  Fire. 

In  this  whole  system  there  is  a  marked  element  of 
harmony  characterizing  all  Nature,  back  of  which  is  a 
Universal  Order,  Divine  Law,  whose  force  is  intelli¬ 
gent  and  efficient,  governing  all  things.  Heracleitus 
calls  this  all-prevailing  principle  intelligent  Will,8  Law,9 

8  Fragment  19 — There  is  one  wisdom,  to  understand  the  intelli¬ 
gent  will  by  which  all  things  are  governed  through  all. 

9  Fragment  91 — The  law  of  understanding  is  common  to  all. 
Those  who  speak  with  intelligence  must  hold  fast  to  that  which 
is  common  to  all,  even  more  strongly  than  a  city  holds  fast  to 
its  law.  For  all  human  laws  are  dependent  upon  one  divine  law, 
for  this  rules  as  far  as  it  wills,  and  suffices  for  all,  and  over¬ 
bounds. 


HISTORY  OF  THOUGHT 


35 


Justice,10  Destiny  or  Fate,11  Wisdom,12  God.13  It  is 
both  material  and  spiritual.  In  its  fiery  make-up  it  is 
identical  with  evident,  tangible  activities;  as  Law  it  be¬ 
comes  pure  Form  which  abides  amid  all  changing  re¬ 
lationships.  Do  we  not  have  here  an  interpretation  of 
the  world  in  its  ultimate  essence  which  is  charged 
through  and  through  with  an  unmistakable  vitalism? 
Confirmation  and  emphasis  are  given  this  belief  by  the 
fact  that  to  the  original  substance  there  is  ascribed  a 
spirit  of  appetency,  which  determined  by  Universal 
order — a  rational  Law — supplies  the  urge  necessary 
to  the  conflicting  activities  by  which  Nature  has  come 
from  a  general  substratum  to  the  experience  of  specific 
individual  identities.  Heracleitus  even  carries  this  doc¬ 
trine  of  activism  over  into  his  ethics  and  teaches  that 
the  (Csummum  bonum”  is  reached  chiefly  through  the 
medium  of  intellectual  striving.1* 


DEMOCRITUS 

We  introduce  at  this  time  the  philosophy  of  Democ¬ 
ritus,15  the  first  materialistic  system.  An  analysis  of 
this  philosophy  is  made,  not  because  it  belongs  to  the 


10  Fragment  29 — The  sun  will  not  overstep  his  bounds,  for  if 
he  does,  the  Erinyes,  helpers  of  justice,  will  find  him  out. 

11  Fragment  63 — For  it  is  wholly  destined  .  .  . 

12  Fragment  65 — There  is  only  one  supreme  wisdom.  It  wills 
and  wills  not  to  be  called  by  the  name  of  Zeus. 

13  Fragment  36 — God  is  day  and  night,  winter  and  summer, 
war  and  peace,  plenty  and  want.  But  he  is  changed,  just  as 
when  incense  is  mingled  with  incense,  but  named  according  to 
the  pleasure  of  each. 

14  Patrick’s  Heracleitus,  p.  56  ff. 

15  Democritus  (460-370  b.c.).  A  native  of  Abdera,  Thrace. 
He  studied  in  the  famous  Atomistic  school  of  Leucippus  which 
was  at  that  place. 


36 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


history  of  energy  systems  but  because  it  is  the  best 
example  of  a  purely  materialistic  system  and  must  be 
carefully  examined  to  show  the  limitations  of  a  non- 
energetic  system  of  thought;  and  also  to  show  that 
this  elaborate  program  of  materialism,  being  without 
a  vitalistic  principle,  offers  a  substitute  for  this  seem¬ 
ing  need. 

Here,  then,  we  find  no  vitalism,  no  idealism;  every¬ 
thing  is  considered  from  a  mechanistic  standpoint. 
Democritus,  taking  up  the  work  begun  in  Atomism  by 
his  master  Leucippus,  was  the  best  representative  of 
the  Atomistic  school.  Naturally  with  him  all  phe¬ 
nomena  are  explained  in  terms  of  atoms  and  the  im¬ 
pact  of  atoms.  The  atoms  to  which  he  reduces  all 
substance  are  invisible,  uncreated,  solid,  indivisible  lit¬ 
tle  bodies  moving  in  empty  space.  Though  alike  quali¬ 
tatively  they  differ  in  form  and  size.  The  various 
groupings  or  constellations  of  these  atoms  furnish  a 
basis  for  all  changing  relationships.  There  is  no  mov¬ 
ing  force  outside  of  them.  Motion  is  a  quality  pe¬ 
culiarly  their  own;  and  as  they  move  in  space  they 
mechanically  strike  each  other.  The  impact  causes  the 
coming  together  of  other  atoms,  and  “thus  worlds  are 
formed  as  well  as  smaller  objects  from  the  original 
vortex.”  The  fire  atoms,  characterized  by  mental  ac¬ 
tivity,  are  the  finest,  smoothest,  and  most  active.  They 
are  to  be  found  not  only  in  man  but  in  plants  and 
animals  as  well,  constituting  the  soul  life  of  that  body 
of  which  they  are  a  part.  Man's  superior  mentality  is 
due  to  a  fuller  abundance  of  these  atoms.  At  death  the 
fire  atoms  take  their  flight  and  the  soul  life  ceases  to  be. 

Democritus  does  not  give  to  his  atoms  a  kind  of  . 


HISTORY  OF  THOUGHT 


37 


spontaneity  as  does  Lucretius,  nor  feeling  and  will  as 
does  the  materialist  Haeckel.  He  does  not  fail ,  how¬ 
ever,  to  make  provision  for  the  energy  part  of  the 
world.  He  endows  his  atoms  with  original  motion 
which  enables  them  to  experience  independent  self¬ 
activity.  Inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  atoms  there  is 
a  tendency  to  combine.  And  also  in  making  the  fire 
atoms  to  be  the  principle  of  activity  in  all  organisms,16 
the  real  “soul  stuff,”  endowing  their  motion  with  a 
psychical  activity  which  permeates  the  entire  organism, 
producing  the  “phenomena  of  heat  and  life,”  he  pre¬ 
sents  a  definite  substitute  for  the  dynamic  conception 
of  reality. 


Aristotle’s  vital  principle 

In  Aristotle’s  philosophy  of  the  organic  world  we 
have  an  interpretation  of  reality  which  rises  above  the 
materialism  of  Democritus  and  is  more  practical  than 
the  idealism  of  Plato.  He  forsakes  the  conceptual  bent 
acquired  in  his  early  training  and  builds  a  world  of 
perceptual  existence.  He  would  say  there  are  no  ideas 
apart  from  individual  things.  “True  reality  is  the  es- 
sense  which  unfolds  in  phenomena.”  Matter  and 
Form  are  the  two  facts  constituting  reality.  There  is 
a  constant  development  in  progress  in  the  world  which 
represents  the  endeavor  of  matter  to  find  expression  in 
Form.  By  matter  he  does  not  mean  a  hard,  dead  mass 
but  an  undercurrent  of  Being  endowed  with  potential¬ 
ity  and  possibility.  By  Form  he  means  the  ideas  or 

16  Windelband,  History  of  Ancient  Philosophy,  p.  165.  (Trans¬ 
lation  by  Cushman.) 


38 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


qualities  which  constitute  the  object.  We  can  get 
Aristotle’s  conception  of  reality  by  using  the  illustra¬ 
tion  of  a  building  in  process  of  construction  which 
would  be  something  like  this:  “Matter  is  the  stone  in 
the  quarry  and  wood  in  the  tree.  Here  is  potential 
being.  Form  is  the  idea  of  the  future  building  as  it  is 
in  the  mind.  Reality  then  is  the  building  as  it  will  be 
when  finished.”  So  of  all  reality. 

Aristotle,  however,  was  not  so  much  interested  in 
reality  itself  as  he  was  in  its  causes.  Thus  we  find 
him  teaching  that  beneath  the  struggle  of  everything 
toward  a  higher  and  better  realization  of  itself  there  is 
a  dynamic  quality  which  initiates  and  lends  impetus  to 
the  movement,  whether  we  call  it  idea,  Form,  or 
energy.  Aristotle  emphasizes  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
particle  of  substance  from  which  this  quality  is  absent. 
As  matter  strives  to  become  Form — the  potentiality  to 
develop  into  actuality — it  is  moving  toward  its  highest 
end  in  time,  man;  reaching  out  for  the  highest  realiza¬ 
tion  possible,  perfection,  which  is  God.  This  inner 
principle,  the  very  soul  of  all  things,  is  constantly 
moving  every  part  of  Nature  toward  a  definite  end, 
revealing  a  principle  of  purpose,  which  indicates  a 
knowing  quality.  This  force  then  inherent  in  all  Na¬ 
ture  is  a  rational  principle  of  activity  and  has  a  real 
relationship  to  the  energy  theory  of  the  present  time. 

EPICURUS  AND  LUCRETIUS 

In  Epicurus’  conception  of  reality  there  is  a  program 
patterned  after  that  of  Democritus.  There  is  nothing 
in  the  universe  except  innumerable,  indestructible  little 


HISTORY  OF  THOUGHT 


39 


atoms  and  empty  space.  In  the  beginning  all  atoms 
were  falling  in  a  straight  line.  Falling  in  empty  space, 
they  fell  with  the  same  velocity.  Each  atom  has  in  it¬ 
self  a  characteristic  freedom,  a  psychical  quality  which 
was  responsible  for  their  swerving  from  their  original 
path.  Striking  one  another  a  nucleus  was  formed, 
finally  objects,  and  the  earth  itself.  Thus  ultimate 
reality  is  found  in  this  little  body,  ruling  out  an  out¬ 
side  force,  final  causes,  God.  There  is  no  system,  no 
law,  no  purposive  organization. 

Lucretius,  who  belonged  to  this  same  school,  in  his 
didactic  poem,  De  Return  Natura,  reemphasizes  the 
philosophy  of  Epicurus,  further  saying  that  only  atoms 
and  void  exist.  All  things  are  the  combinations  of 
these  two  or  an  “event  of  these/’  17  But  he  gives  his 
atoms  a  certain  spontaneity  and  free  will,  saying  that 
the  world,  the  same  as  everything  else,  is  the  spontan¬ 
eous  result  of  the  combination  of  these  little  atoms 
which  are  the  constituents  of  life.  In  this  idea  of 
spontaneity  Lucretius  makes  a  marked  addition  to  the 
psychical  activity  suggested  by  Democritus  and  Epi¬ 
curus,  and  hence  gives  to  his  atoms  a  genuine  dynamic 
quality. 


THE  STOICS 

In  a  study  of  the  Stoics  we  find  a  system  of  material¬ 
ism  which  says  everything  is  matter,  from  God  to  the 
most  insignificant  thing.  Matter  is  the  mover  as  well 
as  the  thing  moved.  The  whole  universe  is  matter  in 

17  Lange,  History  of  Materialism,  Vol.  I,  p.  135. 


40 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


constant  motion.  Nature  not  only  operates  according 
to  law  but  is  a  supreme  law  in  itself.  It,  however,  is 
permeated  by  a  force,  a  fire,  a  reason,  which  is  a  for¬ 
mative,  governing,  and  vital  principle.  This  principle 
with  a  power  inherent  in  itself  operates  constantly  in 
the  process  of  development,  guiding  things  to  a  perfect 
end.  This  force  is  the  very  central  fact  in  the  uni¬ 
verse’s  existence.  It  is  to  the  universe  what  the  soul 
of  man  is  to  man,  man’s  soul  being  but  a  part  of  the 
great  Soul,  the  great  pervading  force.  Consequently 
having  here  a  vital  force  which  is  also  rational,  we 
have  a  qualitatively  psychic  and  dynamic  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  reality. 

Augustine,  representing  the  church  fathers,  and  one 
of  the  first  subjectivists,  in  trying  to  locate  certainty 
and  reality  said  truth  and  reason  are  within  one’s  self. 
These  inner  principles  constitute  the  real  life.  “These 
are  really  God,  for  He  is  truth  and  reason.”  The 
more  we  learn  the  meaning  of  these  inner  experiences 
the  closer  we  get  to  reality.  With  him  then  ultimate 
reality  is  God  operating  in  one's  self  and  life. 

LEIBNITZ 

We  now  come  to  that  place  in  the  history  of  the 
search  for  reality  where  the  dynamic  and  vitalistic 
conceptions  of  reality  which  are  found  in  Heracleitus, 
Aristotle,  the  Stoics,  and  even  in  Lucretius,  come  to  an 
end  for  the  time  in  the  mathematico-mechanical  con¬ 
ception  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Scientific  interest 
centers  primarily  in  matter,  space,  extension  and  mo- 


HISTORY  OF  THOUGHT 


41 


tion.  There  is  one  outstanding  exception,  however,  to 
the  suggestion  that  in  this  period  all  energetic  theories 
are  banished,  and  this  exception  is  Leibnitz.  His  in¬ 
terpretation  of  reality  will  now  be  treated,  remember¬ 
ing  that  he  wrote  later  than  Descartes  or  Spinoza,  the 
chief  exponents  of  the  mechanical  conception  prevail¬ 
ing  in  this  period. 

Leibnitz  attempted  to  do  away  with  the  old  idea  of 
the  atom  as  a  divisible  little  body,  also  to  eliminate  the 
single  substance  theory  of  Spinoza,  and  in  this  en¬ 
deavor  he  built  up  in  his  monadology  a  theory  which 
is  fired  through  and  through  with  a  dynamic  concep¬ 
tion  of  reality.  In  his  system  the  universe  is  made  up 
of  innumerable,  indivisible  little  units  called  monads 
which  are  bits  of  force  constituting  the  ultimate  es¬ 
sence  of  all  things,  reality  itself.  “These  primal  es¬ 
sences  or  forces,  which  he  calls  monads,  constitute  the 
whole  of  reality;  they  are  the  fundamental  elements 
of  the  entire  material  and  spiritual  world  .  .  .  they 
are  contrasted  with  mere  atoms  in  that  they  are  not 
dead,  inert  particles,  but  instinct  with  vitality  and 
movement.”  18 

In  the  world  there  are  degrees  of  consciousness, 
ranging  from  low  to  complete  states,  corresponding  to 
the  make-up  of  the  monads  constituting  the  object. 
This  fact  of  degree  roots  itself  in  the  two  kinds  of 
quality  which  enter  into  matter  so-called — passive  and 
active.  Passive  matter  obstructs  clear  perception  while 
active  matter  represents  pure  perception. 

In  minerals  the  monads  have  a  large  measure  of  pas¬ 
sive  matter;  consequently  there  is  confused  perception, 

18  Alexander,  A  Short  History  of  Philosophy,  p.  320. 


42 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


not  fully  conscious.  In  organic  life  a  large  number  of 
the  monads  possess  a  greater  proportion  of  active  mat¬ 
ter  constituting  a  nucleus  or  governing  center  around 
which  the  other  monads  cluster.  Naturally  then  in 
organic  life  there  is  a  higher  degree  of  perception,  man 
standing  at  the  head  of  the  group.  It  is  only  in  God 
that  we  find  monads  representing  absolutely  clear  per¬ 
ception.  Thus  individually  and  in  groups,  in  all  the 
activities  of  the  universe,  we  find  these  little  centers 
of  force,  with  their  own  peculiar  spirit  of  appetency, 
climbing  toward  higher  realizations  of  being.  The 
cause  of  the  natural  changes  of  the  monads  Leibnitz 
would  ascribe  to  an  internal  principle,  “since  an  ex¬ 
ternal  cause  can  have  no  influence  upon  their  inner 
being.”  19  Thus  his  philosophy  becomes  a  fertile  oasis 
of  dynamism  having  its  setting  in  a  desert  of  dead 
mechanism. 

As  we  have  already  suggested,  in  this  period  the 
current  of  philosophical  thought  runs  from  vitalism  to 
mechanism.  Descartes’  philosophy  well  represents  the 
change  of  attitude  toward  reality.  In  his  system  a  dis¬ 
tinction  is  drawn  between  conscious  and  spatial  reality. 
Matter  is  diametrically  opposed  to  spirit.  There  are 
really  three  realities,  “self,  God,  and  matter.”  God  is 
the  Absolute  Reality  and  thus  is  the  moving  cause. 
The  two  secondary  substances  are  dependent  on  the 
Absolute  Reality,  God.  The  chief  qualities  of  matter 
are  extension  and  motion,  but  matter  is  essentially 
extension,  i.  e.,  space.  There  is  no  place  in  this  system 
for  indivisible  facts  like  atoms.  The  attributes  or 

19Latta,  Leibnitz — The  Monadology,  p.  223. 


HISTORY  OF  THOUGHT 


43 


qualities  of  objects  do  not  rest  in  objects  themselves 
but  are  traceable  to  the  creations  of  our  mental  activi¬ 
ties. 

He  applies  a  mechanical  conception  to^  everything 
outside  of  God  and  self,  denying  mental  states  even  to 
animals.  Huxley  was  pleased  because  Descartes  had 
been  able  to  see  that  “the  remotest  parts  of  the  universe 
are  governed  by  mechanical  laws  including  our  own 
bodily  frame,  and  attempted  for  the  first  time  to  ac¬ 
count  for  all  natural  phenomena  as  only  a  simple  de¬ 
velopment  of  the  laws  of  mechanics  with  the  effect  of 
arriving  ...  at  that  purely  mechanical  view  of  vital 
phenomena  toward  which  modern  physiology  is  striv¬ 
ing.”  20 

Spinoza,  continuing  the  mechanical  conception  of 
reality  characteristic  of  this  period,  makes  no  great, 
fundamental  change  in  the  philosophy  of  Descartes. 
Known  as  the  God-intoxicated  man,  he  taught  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  but  one  substance,  God.  God  and  the  world 
are  identical.  This  infinite  Substance  has  two  attri¬ 
butes — mind  and  matter.  There  are  things  other  than 
God  which  exist  and  yet  they  exist  in  Him;  they  are  a 
part  of  God.  God  is  everything;  everything  is  God, 
might  be  considered  a  summary  of  his  philosophy. 

MECHANISM  VERSUS  DYNAMISM 

The  mechanism  prevailing  in  this  period  to  which 
we  have  referred  would  say  “the  substance  itself  does 
not  change.  All  that  changes  is  the  relation  between 

20  Cooley,  The  Principles  of  Science,  p.  135. 


44 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


the  substances.  These  changes  in  relation  give  rise  in 
us,  as  onlookers,  to  the  illusion  that  the  substance  it¬ 
self  is  changing  its  qualities,”  21  thus  making  the  world 
of  mechanics  tell  the  complete  story  of  reality.  This 
as  over  against  the  dynamic  conception  which  would 
say  “it  is  of  the  very  nature  of  the  substance  sponta¬ 
neously  to  produce  new  qualities  and  states.”  Thus 
according  to  mechanism  the  idea  of  an  inner  force 
directing  to  an  end,  or  even  present  at  all,  is  supplanted 
by  the  belief  that  all  harmony,  all  changes  are  due  to 
the  mechanical  interactions  of  parts  and  their  relation 
to  outside  influences.  As  the  principles  of  “adjust¬ 
ment,  interaction,  continuity,  uniformity,  and  causa¬ 
tion”  play  their  part  we  have  the  secret  of  all  activities. 
And  as  a  result  of  the  work  of  Descartes,  Newton, 
Spinoza,  etc.,  the  dynamic  theory  of  reality  had  to  wait 
for  expression  until  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth  cen¬ 
turies,  at  which  time  we  are  ushered  into  the  biological, 
psychological,  and  dynamic  era  in  which  energy  be¬ 
comes  the  more  basal  concept. 

In  connection  with  the  mechanical  theories  it  is  in 
order  here  to  reach  forward  and  mention  the  philos¬ 
ophy  of  Herbert  Spencer,  although  his  writings  do  not 
appear  until  after  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  cen¬ 
tury.  Spencer  endeavored  to  show  that  all  activities 
of  the  universe  have  as  a  basis  of  operation  a  funda¬ 
mental  principle,  a  persistent  force.22  Then  in  at- 

21  Marvin,  A  First  Book  in  Metaphysics ,  pp.  184-185. 

22  “As  shown  before,  we  cannot  go  on  merging  derivative 
truths  in  those  under-truths  from  which  they  are  derived,  with¬ 
out  reaching  at  least  a  widest  truth  which  can  be  merged  in  no 
other,  or  derived  from  no  other.  And  the  relation  in  which  it 
stands  to  the  truths  of  science  in  general  shows  that  this 
transcending  demonstration  is  the  Persistence  of  Force.  .  .  .  But 


HISTORY  OF  THOUGHT 


45 


tempting  to  account  for  the  way  in  which  this  prin¬ 
ciple  reveals  itself,  he  gives  an  interpretation  of  reality 
which  is  mechanical  and  unsatisfactory.  He  would 
say  “the  law  of  the  continuous  redistribution  of  matter 
and  energy’’  is  fundamental  in  all  changes  and  rela¬ 
tionships.  As  constant  activity  characterizes  every¬ 
thing,  in  this  constant  movement  there  is  an  upward 
and  downward  process  going  on  continually.  The  end 
of  the  upward  movement  is  reached  when  like  units  are 
brought  together  in  such  way  as  to  obtain  a  balance  of 
stability.  It  is  then  when  this  point  is  reached  that 
the  downward  movement  begins  in  the  process  of  dis¬ 
integration.  Thus  the  universe  is  one  big  piece  of 
machinery  whose  parts  are  moving  one  way  for  a  time 
and  then  another.  All  activities  are  thus  reduced  to  a 
system  of  mechanism. 


That  such  a  dead  mechanical  view,  which  had  been 
dominating  in  this  field  of  thought  for  years  and  held 
by  Spencer  in  the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
was  unable  to  satisfy  the  mind  (pragmatically  insuffi¬ 
cient)  is  shown  by  the  new  dynamic  currents  of 
thought  entering  from  many  quarters,  all  suggestive 
of  the  energy  concept,  several  of  which  we  shall  take 
up  at  this  time. 


when  we  ask  what  the  energy  is,  there  is  no  answer  save  that  it 
is  the  noumenal  cause,  implied  by  the  phenomenal  effect.  Hence 
the  force  of  which  we  assert  persistence  is  that  Absolute  Force 
we  are  obliged  to  postulate  as  the  necessary  correlate  of  the 
force  we  are  conscious  of.  By  the  Persistence  of  Force  we  really 
mean  the  persistence  of  some  cause  which  transcends  our  knowl¬ 
edge  and  conception.  In  asserting  it  we  assert  an  Unconditional 
Reality  without  beginning  or  end.”  (Spencer,  First  Principles, 
Sixth  Edition.  175-176.) 


46 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


kant’s  theory  of  the  will 

“There  were  those  who  said  everything  could  be  ex¬ 
plained  by  natural  science  as  a  great  world  machine,” 
but  this  attitude  seemed  cold  and  harsh  to  Kant,  he 
feeling  keenly  conscious  that  there  was  something 
lacking  in  the  philosophy  prevailing  at  that  time.  It 
seemed  to  him  to  be  out  of  touch  with  real  facts,  with 
real  life.  He  aimed  at  supplying  this  seeming  need. 

In  seeking  the  real  facts  of  life  Kant  goes  past  the 
secondary  world  of  phenomena  and  discovers  a  pri¬ 
mary  world  of  absolute  values.  Here  we  meet  with 
human  nature  in  which  there  is  a  marvel  of  beauty 
and  dignity.  In  this  realm  of  higher  values  we  come 
in  touch  with  real  life,  the  innermost  essence  of  man, 
the  will.  This  ultimate  fact,  will,  is  untrammeled, 
free,  supreme. 

All  law  proceeds  from  the  will  for  we  can  do  just 
what  we  will  to  do.  There  is  only  one  good  thing  in 
the  world,  a  good  will,  and  this  striving  will,  acting  as 
a  unifying  power,  a  synthetic  activity,  is  the  Alpha  and 
Omega  of  all  things.  Thus  Kant’s  system,  the  central, 
vital  principle  of  which  is  a  striving ,  energetic  will, 
must  be  given  a  place  in  the  list  of  dynamic  philoso¬ 
phies,  and  a  definite  relationship  to  the  energy  con¬ 
cept. 

) 

Schopenhauer’s  philosophy  of  the  will 

Schopenhauer  makes  will  to  be  the  moving  principle, 
the  vitalizing  force,  not  only  in  man  but  in  all  Nature 
as  well.  This  striving  principle  is  common  to  all  Na- 


HISTORY  OF  THOUGHT 


47 


ture,  nothing  being  too  small  or  remote  to  escape  its 
influence.  It  is  the  eternal  and  indestructible  ultimate 
essence,  the  final  reality  in  all  things.  Will  not  only 
reveals  itself  in  external  things  but  is  matter  itself. 
Our  bodily  movements,  and  the  organs  which  enter 
into  our  experiences  are  but  manifestations  of  a  surg¬ 
ing,  striving  will.  “The  brain  is  the  will  to  know,  the 
foot  the  will  to  go,  the  stomach  the  will  to  digest.”  23 

Will  is  the  force  urging  the  grass  to  grow,  the 
flowers  to  bloom,  the  tree  to  bear  fruit,  in  short,  all 
Nature  to  observe  its  uniform  methods  of  behavior. 
It  is  the  primary  characteristic  of  all  life,  the  lowest 
type  being  the  willing  to  preserve  life,  the  simple  will¬ 
ing  to  live.  From  this  lowest  type  there  is  a  gradual 
rise  in  the  series  until  the  highest  type  is  reached  which 
is  conscious,  and  is  represented  by  man.  The  beauty 
and  harmony  of  all  Nature  is  due  to  the  fact  that  there 
is  but  one  will  and  this  same  will  operates  in  all  phe¬ 
nomena  including  man,  its  great  objective  always 
being  the  highest  and  best  possible. 

Striving  for  the  best  does  not  mean  any  particular 
end,  for  Schopenhauer  rules  out  purposes.  Thus  all 
activities  of  the  universe  constitute  a  mass  of  constant, 
endless,  irrational  striving,  the  great  driving  motor 
being  the  will. 

In  this  connection  Wundt’s  philosophy  of  will  units 
and  Hegel’s  philosophy  of  spirit  could  be  offered  as 
dynamic  theories  as  over  against  the  mechanical 
theories  advocated  by  Descartes  and  Spinoza.  We 

23  Quoted  from  A  Short  History  of  Philosophy,  Alexander, 
p.  501. 


48 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


simply  mention  them  here  and  later,  under  another 
heading,  we  shall  offer  a  brief  analysis  of  each. 

HAECKEL 

In  each  of  the  immediately  foregoing  systems  of 
thought,  indicative  of  modern  belief,  we  find  an  active, 
striving,  vitalizing  force  at  work.  So,  continuing  our 
line  of  thought  which  is  characteristic  of  modern  scien¬ 
tific  presentation,  we  shall  now  turn  aside  for  the  time 
being  and  consider  the  philosophy  of  the  materialist 
Haeckel,  the  monism-intoxicated  scientist.  It  may 
seem  out  of  order  to  introduce  his  system  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  a  study  of  the  energy  concept,  but  we  shall 
give  a  summary  of  his  philosophy  and  add  quotations 
from  his  work,  The  Riddle  of  the  Universe,  with 
the  purpose  of  showing  that  he  actually  gives  to  his 
atoms  a  quality  of  energetic  striving. 

He  purports  to  represent  a  system  of  monism  which 
rises  above  spiritualism  and  sheer  materialism,  as  they 
ignore  matter  and  teach  the  doctrine  of  dead  atoms, 
respectively.24  He  would  merge  both  into  one  and  call 
it  monism.  There  is  but  one  substance  into  which 
everything  roots  itself.  In  this  substance  its  two  attri¬ 
butes,  matter  and  mind,  are  linked  together  as  one. 

Very  often  Haeckel's  representations  are  not  alto¬ 
gether  clear.  In  his  explanation  of  some  activities  he 
points  to  the  soul  principle,  and  at  other  times  pictures 
the  psychical  activities  as  representing  the  ordinary 

24  Haeckel,  Riddle  of  the  Universe ,  p.  20.  (Translation  by 
McCabe.) 


HISTORY  OF  THOUGHT 


49 


functions  of  the  brain,  as  rooting  themselves  in  the 
central  nervous  system.  Psychology  is  but  a  sub-head 
under  physiology  in  his  general  presentation. 

Though  a  heralded  materialist  he  definitely  gives  to 
his  atoms  a  quality  of  feeling,  of  will,  of  striving, 
which  challenges  the  correctness  of  the  classification 
which  some  are  inclined  to  give  his  philosophy.  His 
atoms  seem  to  have  an  affinity  for  each  other,  a  satis¬ 
faction  in  harmonious  relationships  and  resent  an  in¬ 
terruption  of  these  experiences.  This  unconscious, 
pleasurable  affinity  noticed  in  the  lower  strata  of  life 
is  what  we  meet  in  the  sexes  of  organic  life,  simply 
more  highly  developed  in  the  latter,  for  this  funda¬ 
mental  unity  of  affinity  is  found  in  all  Nature.25 

This  program  which  places  all  vital  phenomena 
under  mechanical  processes  of  life,  even  making  psychic 
activities  dependent  on  a  definite  material  substratum, 
like  all  other  phenomena,  later  adds  that  “covering  the 
whole  field  of  organic  and  inorganic  nature  the  two 
fundamental  forms  of  substance,  ponderable  matter 
and  ether,  are  not  dead  and  only  moved  by  extrinsic 
force,  but  they  are  endowed  with  sensation  and  will; 
they  experience  an  inclination  for  condensation,  a  dis¬ 
like  for  strain;  they  strive  after  the  one  and  struggle 
against  the  other.”  26 

In  speaking  of  the  atom  Haeckel  says  it  “is  not  with¬ 
out  a  rudimentary  form  of  sensation  and  will,  or  as  it 
is  better  expressed,  of  feeling  and  inclination — that  is 
a  universal  ‘soul’  of  the  simplest  character.”  27  He 

25  Ibid.,  p.  224. 

26  Ibid.,  p.  220.  (Italics  are  mine.) 

27  Ibid.,  p.  225. 


50 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


would  carry  this  same  principle  of  activity  into  the 
molecule. 

In  speaking  of  ether,  which  is  boundless  and  im¬ 
measurable,  he  says :  “It  is  in  eternal  motion,  and  this 
specific  movement  of  ether  in  reciprocal  action  with 
mass  movement  is  the  ultimate  cause  of  all  phenom¬ 
ena.”  28  The  question  naturally  arises  as  to  what  causes 
the  ether  to  move  or  the  mass  to  reciprocate.  He 
would  say  “the  conversion  of  one  form  of  energy  into 
another,  as  indicated  in  the  law  of  the  persistence  of 
force,  illustrates  the  constant  reciprocity  of  the  two 
chief  types  of  substance,  ether  and  mass.”  29  But  this 
does  not  answer  the  question  as  to  the  fundamental 
cause  of  change. 

Haeckel  would  make  the  law  of  reciprocity  dominate 
the  elaborate  performances  of  the  nervous  system  it¬ 
self.  But  even  when  saying  that  “movement  is  as 
innate  and  original  a  property  of  substance  as  is  sensa¬ 
tion,”  he  is  not  fully  clear  as  to  cause.  It  is  when 
speaking  of  the  evolutionary  division  of  mass  and 
ether  that  he  ascribes  the  real  cause  of  change  and 
which  cause  embodies  a  vitalistic  conception — “this  di¬ 
vision  so  effected  by  a  progressive  condensation  of 
matter  as  the  formation  of  countless  infinitesimal  cen¬ 
ters  of  condensation  in  which  the  inherent  primitive 
properties  of  substance — feeling  and  inclination — are 
the  active  causes.”  30  Thus  there  is  a  “unity  of  all 
natural  forces”  which  is  the  “ monism  of  energy  ”  31 

28  Haeckel,  Riddle  of  the  Universe,  p.  228. 

29  Ibid.,  p.  230. 

30  Ibid.,  p.  243.  (Italics  are  mine.) 

31  Ibid.,  p.  254.  (Italics  are  mine.) 


I 


HISTORY  OF  THOUGHT  51 


OSTWALD 

Among  those  scientists  of  modern  times  who  have 
presented  definite  energy  theories,  a  prominent  place 
must  be  given  the  philosophy  of  Ostwald.32  Here  we 
meet  a  system  in  which  force  or  energy  is  established 
as  the  primary  concept ;  the  concept  matter  being  classi¬ 
fied  as  a  secondary  phenomena,  having  its  origin  in  the 
association  and  mingling  of  certain  energies.  Accord¬ 
ing  tO'  Siebert,33  Ostwald  means  by  energy  everything 
that  grows  out  of  work  and  everything  that  can  be 
transformed  into  work.  The  explanation  of  all  occur¬ 
rences  in  the  whole  of  Nature  rests  in  an  understanding 
of  the  activities  and  shif tings  of  energies  in  space  and 
time. 

There  is  a  continual  process  going  on  in  Nature  of 
distributing  and  gathering  energy.  If  a  living  being  is 
to  continue  life  it  must,  by  an  initiative  and  energy  all 
its  own,  gather  unto  itself  quantities  of  energy  suffi¬ 
cient  not  only  for  preserving  life  but  in  addition 
thereto,  for  it  is  thus  that  it  makes  possible  its  continu¬ 
ance  in  the  preservation  of  the  species.  When  the 
barriers  of  resistance  against  which  the  organism  has 
to  fight,  as  it  gathers  energy,  become  stronger  than 
the  latter,  then  the  living  form  dies.  As  the  body  takes 
in  energy  the  nervous  apparatuses  constitute  the  me¬ 
dium  for  the  transmutation  of  the  energy  into  activi¬ 
ties. 

32  Wm.  Ostwald  (1853-),  Professor  of  Physical  Chemistry  at 
Leipsic. 

33  Geschichte  der  neuren  deutschen  Philosophic  seit  Hegel, 
Siebert,  pp.  302-305. 


52 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


It  is  thus  seen  in  the  history  of  thought  that  it  would 
be  impossible  successfully  to  relegate  to  the  background 
the  strong  tendency  to  dynamism.  It  has  been  in  this 
type  of  philosophy  that  the  scientific  as  well  as  the 
everyday  type  of  mind  has  found  most  genuine  satis¬ 
faction.  Confirmation  of  this  attitude  is  seen  in  the 
seeming  fact  that  those  systems  have  been  lasting  as 
well  as  satisfying  which  have  been  built  around  an 
energetic  conception.  It  is  not  strange  then  that 
modern  thought  is  speaking  out  definitely  in  support  of 
an  energetic  interpretation  of  reality. 


Chapter  III 


THE  DYNAMIC  TREND  IN  MODERN 
PSYCHOLOGY 

There  is  so  much  in  modern  psychology  which  has 
a  strong  bearing  on  the  energy  concept  that  no  one 
writing  in  this  field  would  fail  to  mention  the  definite 
current  of  thought  in  contemporary  psychology,  set¬ 
ting  in  the  direction  of  an  emphasis  upon  the  will  and 
conative  element  in  our  mental  life.  These  together 
with  the  voluntaristic  tendency  of  thought,  the  Freudian 
wish,  the  emphasis  placed  upon  feeling,  self-regard, 
and  fear,  all  indicate  a  relationship  to  an  energetic  con¬ 
ception  of  reality  which  cannot  be  overlooked. 

In  the  search  for  the  cause  responsible  for  the  “pull” 
or  “urge”  which  is  so  evident  in  human  nature,  the  psy¬ 
chologist  naturally  goes  into  the  realm  of  the  mental 
life,  for  it  is  here  that  the  fundamental  element  in  all 
activity  is  to  be  found.  Modern  thought,  however,  is 
not  stopping  with  the  intellect;  this  seems  to  have  had 
its  day.  This  fact  is  very  clear  in  Bergson  who  in 
trying  to  organize  the  delicate  machinery  of  the  inner 
life  definitely  relegates  intellect  to  a  subordinate  place. 
With  him  intellect  seems  to  be  in  a  foreign  field  when 
trying  to  deal  with  the  life  of  the  body  and  mind.  In¬ 
tellect  is  unable  to  get  hold  of  life.  It  seems  to  be  at 
home  in  dealing  with  the  inert;  always  mechanically 
applying  the  forms  of  unorganized  matter.  Here  only 

53 


54> 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


does  it  seem  to  find  complete  satisfaction.  Intellect 
simply  takes  things  as  they  are  given  to  it  and  tries  to 
organize  them.  When  we  come  to  those  things  which 
flow  from  the  heart  of  the  living  we  begin  to  talk  in 
terms  of  behavior  and  give  a  primary  place  to  instinct, 
impulse,  will. 

We  are  not  dealing  simply  with  that  which  enables 
us  to  know  things  but  with  that  something  which  is 
continually  drawing  to  the  yes-side  and  no-side  of  life, 
as  situations  demand  decisions.  Is  this  something  due 
to  a  mechanical  organization  of  our  dispositions  prede¬ 
termined  at  our  very  inception  in  life?  Or  is  it  due 
to  organized  persistent  energy  or  endeavor  characteris¬ 
tic  of  all  life?  Modern  psychology  believes  the  latter 
to  be  the  case. 

The  school  of  voluntarism,  wielding  an  important 
influence  in  psychology  to-day,  will  have  but  little  to 
do  with  intellect,  putting  emphasis  on  the  will  instead, 
saying  that  in  this  we  meet  finality.  As  individual 
purposiveness  characterizes  all  our  actions,  the  factor 
guiding  to  this  end  is  the  will,  playing  continually  the 
volitional  role  peculiar  to  itself.  Our  inward  experi¬ 
ences  then,  controlled  by  the  will  and  of  which  we  are 
immediately  conscious,  reveal  ultimate  reality  and  con¬ 
stitute  a  willing  dynamism.1 

Wundt  is  an  able  representative  of  this  school  of 
thought  which  gives  such  a  large  place  to  the  will. 
With  him  voluntary  action  is  feeling  in  which  the  will 
asserts  itself.  “The  feelings  of  each  moment  unite  in 
a  single  total  feeling;  this  total  feeling  is  the  resultant 

1  Perry,  The  Present  Conflict  of  Ideas ,  pp.  205-210;  454-459. 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY 


55 


volitional  tendency.”  2  Volition  finds  its  causes  in  mo¬ 
tives,  but  for  a  motive  to  be  effective  it  must  be  asso¬ 
ciated  with  a  willing  self.  And  since  volition  has  its 
origin  in  internal  processes  “it  is  at  once  clear  that 
motives  must  be  internal  psychical  causes.” 

According  to  Wundt  the  connate  impulse  roots  it¬ 
self  in  an  interplay  of  psychical  processes,  as  seen  in 
the  actions  of  a  hungry  infant.  This  impulse  is  “physio¬ 
logical  in  its  ultimate  basis  but  springs  directly  from 
psychological  conditions  which  may  at  any  time  inter¬ 
fere  to  modify  its  original  character.”  3  Thus  we  have 
in  this  psychology  an  interpretation  of  reality  in  which 
there  is  an  underlying ,  energetic  principle  dominating 
the  whole  category  of  life's  activities. 

In  James’  psychology  we  also  find  much  stress  put 
upon  the  will  as  an  ultimate  factor  in  the  execution  of 
purpose.  He  would  say  that  the  triumph  of  a  motive 
or  the  realization  of  a  desire  is  due  to  their  being  held 
fast  before  the  mind  at  the  focus  of  consciousness  and 
that  this  is  accomplished  by  inhibiting  all  other  ideas 
competing  for  domination.  Thus  there  is  much  in  real 
will  power. 

Bergson  finds  no  satisfaction  in  a  mechanistic  in¬ 
terpretation  of  reality  nor  in  a  theory  of  finalism.4 
At  every  turn  in  his  system  we  meet  activity,  back  of 
which  is  an  energetic  impulse.  With  him  mind  is  “a 
force  working,  seeking  to  free  itself  from  trammels 
and  also  to  surpass  itself,  to  give  first  all  it  has  and 

2  Wundt,  Human  and  Animal  Psychology,  p.  234. 

3  I  hid.,  p.  401. 

4  Bergson,  Creative  Evolution,  p.  87.  (Translation  by  Mitchell.) 


56 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


then  something  more  than  it  has.”  5  When  speaking 
of  mind  he  means,  above  everything  else,  conscious¬ 
ness;  and  to  this  he  ascribes  heavy  responsibilities,  all 
of  an  active  nature.  The  most  obvious  feature  of 
consciousness  is  memory.  Consciousness,  however, 
not  only  retains  the  past  but  anticipates  the  future  as 
well.  In  the  performance  of  these  two  primary  func¬ 
tions,  its  chief  role  is  to  decide,  to  choose.  Bergson 
feels  that  “whether  we  consider  the  act  which  con¬ 
sciousness  decrees  or  the  perception  which  prepares  the 
act,  in  either  case  consciousness  appears  as  a  force  seek¬ 
ing  to  assert  itself  in  matter  in  order  to  get  possession 
of  it  and  turn  it  to  its  profit.”  6  “The  evolution  of  life, 
from  its  earliest  origins  up  to  man,  presents  to  us  the 
image  of  a  current  of  consciousness  flowing  against 
matter  determined  to  force  for  itself  a  subterranean 
passage.”  7 8 

With  Bergson  consciousness  cannot  be  explained 
apart  from  matter,  and  vice  versa;  and  even  matter  it¬ 
self  he  makes  to  be  of  an  active  type.  In  his  Creative 
Evolution  he  says  that  matter  is  the  inverse  of  con¬ 
sciousness.  While  “consciousness  is  action  unceasingly 
creating  and  enriching  itself  .  .  .  matter  is  action  con¬ 
tinually  unmaking  itself  or  using  itself  up.”  8  A  cre¬ 
ative  consciousness  is  continually  striving  against  mat¬ 
ter.  “Things  have  happened  just  as  though  an  im¬ 
mense  current  of  consciousness,  interpenetrated  with 
potentialities  of  every  kind,  had  traversed  matter  to 
draw  it  towards  organization  and  make  it,  notwith- 

5  Bergson,  Mind-Energy,  p.  27.  (Translation  by  Carr.) 

6  Ibid.,  p.  22. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  27. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  23. 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY 


57 


standing  that  it  is  necessity  itself,  an  instrument  of 
freedom.”  9  In  seeking  to  account  for  the  origin  of 
consciousness  and  matter  he  suggests  that  they  both 
have  a  common  source. 

As  we  go  deeper  into  Bergson’s  philosophy  the  ques¬ 
tion  naturally  arises,  What  is  the  secret  of  this  cease¬ 
less  struggle?  And  then  we  learn  that  there  must  be 
an  “impulse  driving  it  (life)  to  take  ever  greater  and 
greater  risks  toward  its  goal  of  an  ever  higher  and 
higher  efficiency.”  10  He  explains  this  ultimate  guid¬ 
ing  and  developing  element  in  Nature  by  what  he  calls 
the  vital  or  original  impetus.  This  vital  principle 
continually  operates  in  a  way  very  suggestive  of  the 
energy  concept.  As  generations  of  germs  come  and 
go,  this  impulse,  in  the  processes  of  evolution,  contin¬ 
ues  to  abide.  Thus  it  is  fundamental  to  the  formation 
of  variations  and  especially  those  new  species  which 
are  permanent.  As  variations  begin  to  appear  they 
may  become  further  and  further  from  the  original  and 
yet  may  in  particular  ways  show  not  only  similarity, 
but  identity  as  well,  the  original  impetus  being  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  situation.  Thus  Bergson’s  whole  system 
is  seen  to  he  distinctively  dynamic. 

McDougall,  like  James,  would  emphasize  the  will, 
saying  that  when  two  motives  are  competing  for  su¬ 
premacy  the  will  is  thrown  on  the  side  of  one  of  them 
which  leads  to  a  volitional  decision ;  we  thus  “in  some 
way  add  to  the  energy  with  which  the  idea  of  the  one 
desired  end  maintains  itself  in  opposition  to  its  rival.”  11 

9  Ibid.,  p.  25. 

10  Ibid.,  p.  24. 

11  McDougall,  Social  Psychology,  p.  246. 


58 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


But  McDougall  feels  that  there  is  something  back  of 
all  this  and  suggests  that  “human  activities,  both  men¬ 
tal  and  bodily  are  only  to  be  explained  or  understood 
by  tracing  them  back  to  a  number  of  innate  disposi¬ 
tions,  tendencies  to  feel  and  act  in  certain  more  or  less 
specific  ways,  in  certain  situations  .  .  .  like  the  simi¬ 
lar  innate  tendencies  of  the  animals.”  12 

Thorndike  in  his  “Educational  Psychology’’  says 
“these  innate  tendencies  too  bear  the  impetus  and 
means  to  their  own  improvement.”  This  makes  them 
somewhat  independent,  self-directing  and  supporting. 
Thus  we  find  many  psychologists  are  pointing  to  the 
field  of  instincts  as  having  a  vital  connection  with  all 
experiences,  maintaining  that  “each  instinct  is  a  great 
source  or  spring  of  the  psycho-physical  energy  that 
supports  our  bodily  and  mental  activities.” 

In  modern  Psychology  we  also  find  self  being 
stressed  as  the  abiding  entity.  Naturally  then  much 
is  made  of  the  self-regarding  sentiment.  According 
to  Freud  and  his  school,  in  the  heart  of  this  self  is  an 
unburied  wish,  which  is  persistent,  imperishable  and 
unfulfilled.  This  wish  as  a  vitalistic  element  is  so  per¬ 
sistent  that  it  is  continually  appealing  for  a  chance  for 
expression,  and  if  thwarted  once,  will  appear  else¬ 
where,  again  and  again,  perhaps  in  a  new  form. 

Fundamental  to  all  thought  and  activity  is  this  ever 
striving  wish,  which  is  inherited  from  one  generation 
to  another.  “Inherited  wishes  .  .  .  are  pulses  of 
energy  and  not  organic  structure.  Can  the  wish  of 

12  McDougall,  Social  Psychology ,  p.  385. 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY 


59 


the  parent  arouse  the  same  wish  in  the  offspring?  Yes, 
if  the  wish  is  a  pulse  energy  and  not  a  structural  prod¬ 
uct.  The  pulse  which  is  a  wish  in  consciousness  passes 
through  the  whole  organism  affecting  every  part  to 
some  degree.  The  child  in  the  womb  or  undischarged 
sex  cell  would  be  somewhat  altered  by  the  pulse.  .  .  . 
The  child  thus  receives  the  wish  pulses  aroused  by  the 
parent.”  13  This  wish  then  is  an  undying  energetic 
principle  running  in  the  middle  of  the  stream  of  human 
nature.  As  an  active  principle  inherited  from  one 
generation  to  another,  it  reminds  us  somewhat  of 
Bergson’s  original  impetus  which  passes  from  one 
generation  of  germs  to  another,  and  which  we  have 
suggested  as  being  very  similar  to  the  activities  of  a 
restless  energy . 

Not  only  the  Freudian  school  but  others  as  well 
would  root  all  these  processes  in  the  sex  impulse.  In 
the  last  few  years  there  has  been  much  of  sex  in 
psychological  literature,  as  seen  in  the  works  of  Freud, 
Hall,  Ellis,  and  others.  Barton,  recognizing  the  re¬ 
lationship  between  religion  and  adolescence,  says  sex  is 
the  predominant  source  in  religion.  As  a  background 
of  proof  for  this  attitude  reference  is  made  to  the 
genetic  account  of  relationship  of  sex  to  religion  in 
which  it  is  shown  that  the  curve  of  conversion  which 
is  the  religious  awakening,  harmonizes  with  the  fre¬ 
quency  of  accession  to  puberty,  the  peak  for  boys 
coming  at  the  age  of  sixteen  and  seventeen  and  for 
girls  thirteen  and  fourteen. 

But  the  fact  as  to  whether  or  not  this  innate  ten- 

13  Patten,  The  Monist — Article  on  the  Divided  Self. 


60 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


dency,  this  inner  striving,  this  vitalistic  principle  with 
its  processes  roots  down  into  the  sex  instinct  does  not 
interest  us  so  much  here  as  the  fact  that  much  in  mod¬ 
ern  psychology  in  teaching  the  presence  of  an  innate 
tendency,  is  leaning  toward  a  dynamic  interpretation 
of  life,  and  thus  makes  its  definite  contribution  to  the 
establishment  of  a  relationship  between  this  field  of 
thought  and  the  energy  concept. 

Even  in  the  philosophy  of  life  itself,  as  it  is  being 
lived  by  the  multitudes  to-day,  we  meet  a  strain  of  the 
energy  concept.  Such  terms  as  “up  and  doing,”  “wide 
awake,”  “full  of  life,”  “on  the  go,”  “full  of  pep,”  all 
bespeak  life  with  a  large  expenditure  of  energy.  And 
this  is  present  day  life.  The  passive  life  is  altogether 
out  of  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  times.  The 
gospel  of  to-day  is  that  of  action. 

Rudolph  Eucken  in  his  philosophy  of  activism  is  the 
apostle  of  this  type  of  thought.  His  works  beam  with 
a  dynamic  interpretation  of  life.  Passivity  is  diamet¬ 
rically  opposed  to  his  idea  of  real  life.  The  individual 
who  plays  only  a  passive  part  in  life’s  work  not  only 
fails  to  make  his  expected  contribution  but  fails  in  the 
development  of  his  own  self.  We  find  ourselves  only 
as  we  fight  to  work  out  our  own  salvation.  We  cannot 
expect  to 

“Be  carried  to  the  skies 
On  flowery  beds  of  ease,” 

but  must 

“Fight  to  win  the  prize, 

And  sail  through  bloody  seas.” 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY 


61 


We  come  to  the  full  realization  of  the  beauty  and 
worth  of  life  only  as  the  spiritual  self  triumphs  over 
the  resistance  which  it  meets  in  the  world.  Activity 
is  the  only  avenue  through  which  one  can  take  his 
place  in  the  world  of  real  values.  Thus  a  life  full  of 
energy  and  organized  toward  right  ends  is  reality  it¬ 
self. 

So  we  see  that  in  the  philosophy  of  the  past,  in  con¬ 
temporary  psychology,  and  even  in  the  philosophy  of 
life  there  is  strong  support  for  the  attitude  of  modern 
science  which  is  definitely  declaring  its  belief  in  a 
dynamic  conception  of  reality. 


/ 


I 


Part  II:  ENERGY  AS  A  SPIRITUAL 

FORCE 


Chapter  I 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  OF 

ENERGY 

In  the  first  part  we  set  out  to  learn,  if  possible,  the 
identity  of  that  something  which  in  the  midst  of  un¬ 
ceasing  change,  continues  to  abide;  that  something 
which  constitutes  the  ultimate  essence  of  the  world. 
It  was  seen  that  the  search  for  ultimate  reality  was  not 
anything  new  but  that  the  inquiry  concerning  final 
reality  constitutes  a  strong  current  in  the  general 
stream  of  philosophical  endeavor.  Finally,  we  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  that  abiding  something  is  energy 
and  endeavored  to  show  that  from  the  standpoint  of 
science  and  philosophy  the  whole  universe  is  to  he 
conceived  in  terms  of  energy. 

Also  it  was  seen  that  many  of  the  profound  thinkers 
recognized  a  mysterious,  dynamic  principle  in  Nature 
and  ascribed  to  it  wonderful  possibilities.  This  ener¬ 
getic  conception  seemed  to  prevail  until  the  seventeenth 
century  when  a  mechanistic  interpretation  began  to 
predominate.  But  science  and  philosophy  seemingly 
failed  to  find  satisfaction  in  a  cold,  dead,  mechanical 
system,  with  the  result  that  the  dynamic  conception  of 
reality  began  to  reappear,  receiving  a  new  emphasis, 
until  to-day  science  is  speaking  out  boldly,  saying  that 

not  only  does  dynamism  justifiably  take  precedence 

65 


66  RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 

over  mechanical  materialism  hut  that  reality  itself  is 
energy. 


THEORIES  OF  ENERGY 

There  are  several  theories  of  energy  as  outlined  by 
Cooley  in  his  book,  The  Principles  of  Science : 

(1)  Energy  is  given  a  place  as  substance  beside 
matter;  it  is  made  to  be  a  universal,  formative  agency. 
Matter  is  the  means  through  and  by  which  energy  ac¬ 
complishes  its  purposes,  the  something  which  it  shapes. 
This,  then,  is  a  dualistic  attitude,  there  being  two  sub¬ 
stances — energy  and  matter. 

(2)  The  second  view  makes  matter  the  only  sub¬ 
stance,  and  energy  is  simply  the  name  representing  its 
activities.  Energetic  phenomena  are  simply  matter  in 
action.  So  we  call  heat,  chemical  affinity,  electricity, 
etc.,  different  forms  of  matter’s  activities. 

(3)  “We  may  think  of  energy  as  the  true  funda¬ 
mental  substance  of  the  world,  and  matter  as  one  of 
its  modes,  its  more  highly  organized  form.  This  is 
the  conception  embodied  in  the  electronic  theory  of 
matter,  or  at  least  in  one  form  of  it.  According  to 
that  conception  fundamental  existence  is  essentially 
active — a  heaving  ocean  of  being — but  it  is  not  active 
matter;  it  is  that  more  subtle,  weightless  agency  which 
we  call  electricity.  This,  which  is  the  real  agent  in  all 
that  goes  on  in  the  physical  world,  the  root  of  all  nat¬ 
ural  forces,  exists  in  the  form  of  more  or  less  discrete 
and  extremely  active  units  (electrons).1  .  .  .  Thus 
we  may  think  of  it  as  itself  the  one  fundamental 

1  Cooley,  The  Principles  of  Science,  pp.  126-127. 


SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  ENERGY  67 


(physical)  existence,  manifold  in  all  forms,  ceaselessly 
active  in  its  nature.”  2 

It  is  the  third  view  which  modern  thought  is  coming 
more  and  more  to  accept.  And  the  more  we  study  the 
present  scientific  attitude  the  more  are  we  amazed  at 
the  large  field  of  facts  which  the  term  energy  is  selected 
to  represent.  Thus  it  seems  that  at  this  time,  by  way 
of  explanation,  it  should  be  said  that  the  word  energy 
with  its  established  meaning  in  our  vocabulary  is  really 
not  big  enough  to  represent  all  that  science  means  when 
using  the  term.  Since  we  are  making  energy  stand  for 
so  much,  it  would  be  more  satisfactory  if  a  new  word 
had  been  introduced  into  the  list  of  scientific  terms. 
With  these  facts  in  mind  regarding  the  use  of  the  term 
energy  we  now  approach  the  immediate  task  of  en¬ 
deavoring  to  interpret  what  seems  to  be  the  facts  of  its 
inner  content. 

THE  SPIRITUAL  HYPOTHESIS 

Having  reached  the  conclusion  that  reality  is  energy, 
we  now  want  to  know  what  this  energy  is.  Ours  is  an 
ontological  problem  and  naturally  leads  us  in  our  in¬ 
quiries  into  an  attempt  to  obtain  a  critical  understand¬ 
ing  of  what  '‘being”  really  is.  Apparently  the  old 
philosophers  were  satisfied  to  say  that  reality  was 
earth,  air,  fire,  water,  etc.,  and  being  just  pioneers  in 
the  field  of  scientific  investigation  could  not  with  posi¬ 
tive  assurance  get  close  to  the  heart  of  their  problems. 
Science  to-day  is  past  the  place  where  it  is  willing  to 
take  very  much  for  granted  and  is  dissatisfied  unless  it 

2  Ibid.,  p.  128. 


68 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


can  get  on  the  inside  of  its  investigated  subjects. 
With  the  models  of  the  centuries  at  hand  and  with 
accumulated  insight  and  improved  scientific  methods, 
we  have  a  right  to  expect  a  scientific  progress  com¬ 
mensurate  with  the  advantages  which  the  present  en¬ 
joys,  in  relation  to  the  past.  So  we  must  not  stop 
with  the  general  concept  of  energy  but  inquire  con¬ 
cerning  its  qualitative  aspects. 

Since  science  to-day  is  operating  on  the  assumption 
that  energy  is  that  element  fundamental  to  all  forms  of 
existence  and  which  represents  the  final  analysis  of 
all  things,  it  is  logical  for  us  to  adopt  the  short-cut 
method  and  simply  knock  at  the  door  of  chemistry  and 
physics  and  ask,  What  is  energy? 

We  go  to  the  physicist  and  ask  him  for  a  definition 
of  matter  and  he  tells  us  it  is  “an  aggregation  of  elec¬ 
tric  charges/’  If  we  ask  for  a  definition  of  energy  he 
says  it  is  the  “capacity  for  doing  work”;  and  if  urged 
to  be  more  concrete  he  may  say  it  is  “force  times  the 
distance.”  Then  if  we  ask  for  a  definition  of  reality 
we  are  told  that  that  does  not  belong  to  physics  but  to 
another  field  of  thought,  philosophy. 

Thus  we  make  the  discovery  that  the  scientist  con¬ 
cerns  himself  very  little  with  our  side  of  the  problem. 
He  deals  with  energy  chiefly  in  its  quantative  aspects 
and  is  not  as  persistent  in  his  endeavor  to  make  a  quali¬ 
tative  analysis.  It  seems  that  the  interest  of  science 
in  this  latter  phase  is  measured  and  determined  by  the 
amount  of  philosophy  which  happens  to  be  therein. 

“Who  or  what  moves  bodies,  in  the  sense  of  agency 
or  potency,  is  for  scientific  purposes  a  negligible  ques- 


SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  ENERGY  69 


tion.”  3  In  dealing  with  energy  the  end  of  the  physi¬ 
cist  and  chemist  are  met  primarily  in  the  mathematico 
relationships. 

In  our  study  of  the  energy  concept,  we  are  interested 
in  this  problem  from  a  qualitative  standpoint.  The 
“number,  length,  breadth,  volume,  interval,”  etc.,  will 
not  suffice  for  our  purpose;  nor  is  it  satisfactory  to 
stop  with  saying  that  things  behave  thus  and  so  as  they 
are  influenced  by  certain  causes.  We  want  to  go 
deeper  than  this  and  know  “why”  and  “how”  these 
causes  operate.  And  since  our  immediate  objective  is 
to  analyze  reality  qualitatively,  we  have  a  goal,  there¬ 
fore,  which  is  very  different  from  that  which  could  be 
reached  by  means  of  mathematical  science. 

In  probing  into  the  question  concerning  the  attri¬ 
butes  of  energy  we  read  with  great  interest,  in  de 
Tunzelmann’s  Problem  of  the  Universe,  the  state¬ 
ment  that  “the  concept  of  the  ether  has  led  us  to  the 
conclusion  that  energy  is  a  more  fundamental  concept 
than  either  ether  or  matter.  It  is  therefore  more  fun¬ 
damental  than  the  concept  of  mass,  so  that  the  indicated 
path  of  progress  is  not  the  remodeling  of  our  repre¬ 
sentation  in  order  to  make  it  capable  of  simpler  ex¬ 
pression  in  terms  of  a  system  of  dynamics  in  which 
mass  was  regarded  as  fundamental.  What  we  have  to 
contemplate  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  remodeling  of  our 
system  of  dynamics  on  the  basis  of  energy  in  the  place 
of  mass.  We  may  then  begin  to  contemplate  the  ulti¬ 
mate  possibility  of  a  future  remodeling  in  which  mind 

3  Perry,  Present  Philosophical  Tendencies,  p.  53. 


70 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


will  replace  energy  as  the  fundamental  basis  of  the 
physical  schemed ’ 4 

Chamberlain  lends  emphasis  to  this  attitude  in  say¬ 
ing  that  “an  immeasurably  higher  evolution  than  that 
now  reached,  with  attainments  beyond  present  compre¬ 
hension,  is  a  reasonable  hope.  The  forecast  of  an  eon 
of  intellectual  and  spiritual  development  comparable 
in  magnitude  to  the  prolonged  physical  and  biotic  evo¬ 
lutions  lends  to  the  total  view  of  earth-history  great 
moral  satisfaction.”  5 

Also,  Perry  says,  “If  it  is  impossible  to  construe  the 
world  in  terms  of  thought  or  in  terms  of  moral  life, 
there  yet  remains  a  further  conception,  complete 
enough  to  embrace  these  and  every  other  possible 
value — the  conception  of  a  universal  spiritual  life  that 
shall  be  infinitely  various  and  infinitely  rich.”  6  These 
attitudes  point  to  the  same  possible  conception  of  real¬ 
ity;  they  stress  the  spirit  concept. 

Since,  as  we  have  suggested  before,  physical  science 
offers  no  answer  to  our  legitimate  demands  for  a  quali¬ 
tative  interpretation  of  energy,  we  are  therefore  forced 
to  make  our  own  hypothesis  respecting  its  inner  na¬ 
ture;  and  are  encouraged  by  the  tendency  of  modern 
thought,  as  mentioned  above,  to  champion  a  belief  in 
the  hypothesis  which  says  that  energy  is  of  a  spiritual , 
psychical  nature. 

This  hypothesis  is  what  in  philosophy  is  called 
spiritualism,  and  gains  for  its  support  whatever 

4de  Tunzelmann,  Preface  to  The  Electrical  Theory  and  the 
Problem  of  the  Universe,  pp.  15-16.  (Italics  are  mine.) 

6  Chamberlain  and  Salisbury,  Introductory  Geology,  p.  684. 

6  Perry,  Present  Philosophical  Tendencies,  p.  153. 


SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  ENERGY  71 

strength  there  is  in  this  system  of  belief.  There  are 
many  important  facts  in  philosophy  with  which  spirit¬ 
ualism  is  in  harmony  and  whose  problems  this  theory 
helps  to  solve.  While  on  the  other  hand,  any  theory 
which  opposes  these  outstanding  facts  or  leaves  them 
without  explanation,  must  in  its  very  nature  be  looked 
upon  as  incomplete.  In  the  approach  to  this  part  of 
our  task,  ours  is  a  virgin  field.  We  repeat,  while 
science  is  looking  upon  reality  as  energy  it  offers  no 
qualitative  interpretation  of  energy.  This  being  true, 
the  spiritualistic  hypothesis,  as  such,  is  legitimate,  and 
since  it  will  be  verified  as  far  as  it  explains  things 
which  need  explanation,  can  demand  a  respectful  hear¬ 
ing. 


THE  SPIRITUAL  HYPOTHESIS  AND  THE  CREATIVE  IDEA 

In  the  first  place,  a  spiritual  interpretation  of  reality 
helps  to  solve  the  problem  of  creation.  There  is  a 
prevailing  notion  in  modern  thought  that  creation  is 
not  a  finished  fact,  a  thing  of  the  past,  but  as  a  prin¬ 
ciple  inheres  in  the  life  of  the  present.  ‘‘Traces  of  evi¬ 
dence  are  lately  beginning  to  come  into  view,  which 
are  highly  suggestive  of  continuous  present  day  crea¬ 
tion  of  matter  at  the  inorganic  level,  and  of  creation 
of  life  from  inorganic  materials  at  the  organic  level.”  7 
A  creative  workmanship  seems  to  be  characteristic  of 
all  Nature,  underlying  which  is  a  dynamic,  energetic 
principle.  This  vital,  creative  impulse  is  continually 
reaching  its  objective.  It  is  not  strange,  then,  that  in 
the  recent  movements  of  thought  we  should  meet  repre- 

7  Moore,  The  Origin  and  Nature  of  Life,  p.  31. 


72 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


sentatives  of  creative  evolution,  creative  synthesis,  cre¬ 
ative  intelligence.  It  seems  there  is  no  fact  in  modern 
philosophy  which  looms  up  quite  so  large  as  the  crea¬ 
tive  idea.  But  in  this  incessant  life  of  continuous  crea¬ 
tion  there  must  be  more  than  an  interplay  of  mechani¬ 
cal  agencies.  A  creative  activity  is  difficult  to  conceive 
apart  from  spirit . 

THE  SPIRITUAL  HYPOTHESIS  AND  VITALISM 

Again,  we  have  seen  how  general  is  the  stream  of 
vitalism  which  runs  through  philosophical  and  scientific 
thought.  It  holds  a  prominent  place  in  the  history  of 
thought  because  there  are  strong  evidences  of  it  in 
Nature.  If  there  are  remarkable  evidences  of  a  vitalis- 
tic  principle  in  Nature  we  are  justified  in  believing  it 
to  be  there.  Even  the  “naked  eye”  reveals  to  us  Nature 
throbbing  with  a  fervent  life.  In  fact  we  have  con¬ 
cluded  that  reality  is  energy.  Can  we  think  of  a  vital- 
istic  principle  rooting  itself  in  mechanism  ?  Hardly  so. 
Nor  can  we  conceive  of  vitalism  out  of  relation  to 
spirit.  History  and  personal  experience  have  clearly 
shown  that  a  mechanical  “letter  of  the  law”  program 
kills,  while  it  is  the  spirit  which  gives  life.  Interpret¬ 
ing  energy  spiritually  seems  to  furnish  the  only  explan¬ 
ation  for  the  presence  of  the  vitalistic  element  inherent 
in  Nature. 

The  mechanistic  interpretation  may  satisfy  in  a 
limited  way  but  unless  spirit  is  posited  back  of  all 
this,  it  is  impossible  to  beat  down  the  troublesome 
question,  Whence  came  this  great  piece  of  smoothly 
working  machinery — the  universe  ?  Here  the  me- 


SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  ENERGY  73 


chanical  materialist,  although  applying  his  interest  in¬ 
tensively  to  other  tasks,  takes  things  as  he  finds  them 
and  asks  no  questions.  It  is  genuinely  inconsistent 
and  unsatisfactory  to  pass  up  the  problem  of  origin  in 
this  way;  it  smacks  too  much  of  incompleteness. 

THE  SPIRITUAL  HYPOTHESIS  AND  TELEOLOGY 

In  observing  the  harmonious  relationships  charac¬ 
terizing  the  activities  of  the  universe,  most  thinkers 
are  inclined  to  say  with  Tennyson, 

“Yet,  I  doubt  not  through  the  ages,  one  increasing  purpose 
runs.” 

And  Henderson,  speaking  as  a  bio-chemist  in  the 
Order  of  Nature ,  stresses  the  impossibility  of  ignoring 
the  fact  that  there  is  a  purposive  tendency  in  things. 
The  evident  expression  of  intelligence  which  is  met 
everywhere  has  been  explained  by  many  as  a  teleologi¬ 
cal  provision  on  the  part  of  a  great  Designer.  There 
is  evidence  of  teleology  in  Nature,  but  the  old  system 
of  teleology  is  not  satisfactory,  because  it  makes  God 
too  much  of  a  transcendent  Being.  Realizing  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  within  us,  modern  thought  is 
making  him  less  of  a  sky  God  and  is  giving  him  his 
rightful  place  in  the  very  heart  of  life.  He  is  not  only 
transcendent  but  is  immanent  as  well.  It  is  inconceive- 
able  that  a  ruling  King  should  be  living  outside  his 
kingdom. 

Many  teleologists  are  thus  modifying  their  attitude 
somewhat  and  are  advocating  what  might  be  called  an 


74 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


immanent  teleology.  The  problem  of  an  intelligent 
principle  guiding  all  existing  forms  to  the  highest  ends 
possible,  easily  finds  its  solution  in  a  spiritual  system 
of  reality. 


THE  SPIRITUAL  HYPOTHESIS  AND  EVOLUTION 

Then,  too,  a  spiritualistic  program  helps  with  the 
problem  of  evolution.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the 
discovery  of  this  theory  has  revolutionized  science. 
Modern  thought  is  strongly  inclined  to  a  belief  in  crea¬ 
tive  evolution,  and  this  principle  being  true,  its  cause 
can  hardly  be  found  in  a  cold  system  of  materialism. 
Generally  speaking,  there  seems  to  be  a  missing  link 
in  evolution.  If  one  is  willing  to  stay  on  the  outside 
and  simply  take  facts  as  they  come,  then  probably  a 
general  mechanical  theory  of  evolution  will  suffice. 

There  are  those  who  would  follow  in  the  footsteps 
of  Hobbes  and  apply  a  mechanical  interpretation  even 
to  the  facts  of  the  mind,  thus  reducing  all  mental  phe¬ 
nomena  to  a  system  of  physics.  But  this  method  would 
force  us  to  live  in  a  lifeless  age,  similar,  for  instance, 
to  that  outlined  in  Pearson’s  Grammar  of  Science. 
And  also,  a  system  such  as  this  fails  to  account 
for  the  richness  and  reality  of  human  experiences.  No 
human  being  would  be  satisfied  to  live  in  a  world 
which  could  offer  only  hypotheses.  Thus  we  cannot 
afford  unreservedly  to  adopt  a  system  which  can  only 
say  “it  happens  so  every  time,”  mere  chance,  and  then 
stop  with  that. 

The  evolution  of  progress  can  find  no  justification 
in  the  realm  of  chance;  nor  can  it  be  explained  by  a 


SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  ENERGY  75 


system  of  mechanism.  It  is  when  we  place  spirit  at 
the  bottom  of  the  whole  evolutionary  process  that  evo¬ 
lution  becomes  more  reasonable  and  complete;  and  a 
satisfactory  explanation  of  its  inner  working  is  given , 
for  we  have  thus  introduced  the  possibility  of  a  vitalis - 
tic ,  knowing  quality. 


Chapter  II 


HISTORICAL  SUPPORT  FOR  THE  SPIRITUAL 

THEORY 

Early  in  our  work  a  study  was  made  of  the  philos¬ 
ophy  of  those  men  in  whose  systems  could  be  found  a 
strong  dynamic  element,  the  purpose  being  to  show 
that  from  the  beginning  of  philosophical  inquiry  an 
energetic  interpretation  of  reality  has  characterized 
many  of  the  strongest  systems.  Now  we  shall  pass  in 
review  some  of  those  writers  whose  conceptions  are 
distinctively  spiritual,  confirming  our  attitude  that 
many  of  the  best  students  working  with  the  problem 
of  reality  interpret  it  spiritually,  thus  helping  to  estab¬ 
lish  the  hypothesis  that  energy  operates  as  a  spiritual 
force. 

LEIBNITZ 

In  Leibnitz’  philosophy  we  have  what  is  perhaps  the 
most  elaborate  spiritual  system  ever  formulated.  His 
interpretation  of  reality  has  already  been  presented, 
because  of  its  dynamic,  energetic  qualities,  suggesting 
a  close  relationship  to  the  energy  concept.  As  our 
immediate  interest  now  has  to  do  with  the  qualitative 
aspects  of  this  concept,  his  theory  is  re-stated  some¬ 
what  in  detail,  from  the  angle  of  its  spiritual  import. 

Leibnitz  resolves  everything  into  centers  of  psychic , 

spiritual  force  which  are  without  parts,  extension  or 

76 


SUPPORT  FOR  THE  SPIRITUAL  THEORY  77 


form  and  are  indivisible  and  immaterial.  In  the  Atom¬ 
ism  of  that  day  these  little  units  were  material  but  with 
Leibnitz  they  were  distinctively  spiritual.  These  “sim¬ 
ple  substances”  constitute  ultimate  reality;  they  differ 
from  each  other  in  quality  but  not  in  quantity,1  each 
being  self-sufficient  and  a  little  world  unto  itself.  This 
is  somewhat  similar  to  the  modern  idea  of  the  atom 
which  elsewhere  we  have  likened  to  an  independent  lit¬ 
tle  solar  system. 

Not  only  are  the  highest  types  of  being  concerned, 
but  the  very  substance  of  all  reality  is  found  in  these 
psychical,  spiritual  units.  The  lowest  classification  is 
to  be  found  in  minerals,  plants,  etc.,  and  here  the  cen¬ 
ters  of  force  are  called  monads.  Here  we  meet  percep¬ 
tion  just  the  same,  but  it  is  not  clear  or  conscious,  the 
grade  of  thought  being  something  like  a  stupor.  Also 
here  as  in  all  forms  of  being  each  monad  has  in  itself 
a  principle  of  striving  to  a  higher  condition  of  activity 
or  perception.  The  clearness  of  perception  is  not  only 
proportionate  to  the  activity  of  the  monads  but  condi¬ 
tions  their  grade  or  classification.  The  confused  per¬ 
ception  of  the  lowest  state  is  illustrated  by  the  wave 
sounds  of  the  sea;  we  know  that  each  wave  makes  its 
individual  contribution  to  the  general  sound,  yet  it  is 
impossible  to  perceive  them  separately,  the  attempt  re¬ 
sulting  in  confused  perception.  This  is  the  characteris¬ 
tic  thought  life  of  minerals  and  plants. 

The  psychical,  “simple  substances,”  fundamental  in 
all  Nature,  whose  perception  is  more  distinct  and  as¬ 
sociated  with  feeling  and  memory  are  called  souls. 
Memory  which  is  the  sign  of  consciousness  is  the  dif- 

1  Latta,  Leibnitz:  the  Monadology,  p.  221  ff. 


78 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


ferentiating  factor  between  the  lowest  types  of  being 
and  animal  life. 

Human  beings  have  a  clear  perception  and  thus  live 
in  a  higher  scale  of  being.  Having  reason  and  knowl¬ 
edge,  they  can  come  to  a  knowledge  of  themselves  and 
even  of  God.  This  quality  in  man  is  called  rational 
soul  or  mind.  There  is  just  one  Being  who 
experiences  the  full  power  of  perception,  God,  who  is 
infinite  and  absolutely  perfect.  Thus  we  see  the  whole 
universe  to  be  alive  with  thought,  the  principle  of  per¬ 
ception  prevailing  from  the  most  insignificant  thing  up 
to  God. 

In  his  “Monadology”  then  Leibnitz  has  built  up  a 
vast,  closely  woven  system  of  spiritualism.  All  reality 
roots  itself  in  psychical  centers  of  force.  These,  while  in¬ 
dividually  self-sufficient,  together  constitute  all  Nature. 
In  the  smallest  portion  of  matter  there  is  a  large  group 
of  these  active,  living  monads.  “Each  portion  of  mat¬ 
ter  may  be  conceived  as  like  a  garden  full  of  plants 
and  like  a  pond  full  of  fishes.  But  each  branch  of 
every  plant,  each  member  of  every  animal,  each  drop 
of  its  liquid  parts  is  also  some  such  garden  or  pond.”  2 
Each  living  body  has  its  central  or  ruling  monad. 
Then  each  member  of  this  living  body  is  full  of  living 
creatures  clustering  about  a  central  monad  or  soul. 
These  little  particles  surrounding  the  ruling  soul  con¬ 
tinually  but  slowly  change,  thus  never  giving  the  soul 
an  entirely  new  body,  while  the  soul  itself  does  not 
change.  The  central  monad  is  always  associated  with 
some  such  body  of  changing  creatures,  God  being  the 

2  Latta,  Leibnitz:  the  Monadology,  p.  256  ff. 


SUPPORT  FOR  THE  SPIRITUAL  THEORY  79 

only  Spirit  free  from  a  body.  No  matter  then  to  what 
forms  of  being  we  might  appeal,  spiritual  centers  of 
force  are  found  to  be  fundamental  to  all  reality. 

HEGEL 

In  Hegel’s  philosophy  “everything  is  spirit;  spirit  is 
everything.”  The  ultimate  essence  of  the  universe ,  its 
true  reality  is  found  in  this  self -operating,  inner  spirit¬ 
ual  principle  which  is  fundamental  to  all  Nature. 
Spirit  finds  expression  in  three  forms,  subjective,  ob¬ 
jective,  and  absolute,  covering  the  entire  field  of  activ¬ 
ities. 

The  subjective  spirit  strives  through  the  power  of 
the  will  to  bring  the  spiritual  life  of  the  individual  to 
that  place  of  experience  where  it  is  free  and  independ¬ 
ent  of  its  environment,  and  is  not  satisfied  until  it 
reaches  the  goal  of  its  ambition.  The  objective  spirit 
is  identical  with  the  spiritual  life  finding  expression  in 
the  everyday  phases  and  functions  of  life.  Here  the 
will  asserts  itself  in  the  forms  and  customs  common 
to  human  relationships.  In  a  particular  institution, 
for  instance,  we  have  a  single  manifestation  of  the  all- 
pervading  spirit.  The  absolute  spirit  is  the  blending  of 
the  subjective  and  objective  spirit.  Here  we  have  an 
active,  unifying  consciousness,  absolute  reality  itself. 
All  differences  between  subjective  and  objective  ex¬ 
periences  fade  away.  This  self-assertive,  absolute 
spirit  moves  up  into  satisfied  realization  chiefly  through 
the  forms  afforded  by  the  fields  of  art,  religion,  and 
philosophy. 


80 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


WUNDT 

Wundt  has  built  up  a  system  of  idealism,  which  re¬ 
minds  us  somewhat  of  Leibnitz’  theory  of  monads. 
Leibnitz  made  his  monads  centers  of  perception  while 
Wundt  makes  his  units  of  will.  Here  we  do  not  hear 
so  much  about  matter,  substance,  mind,  and  soul,  but 
speak  in  terms  of  ideas,  psychical  processes,  will  units. 
His  whole  system  is  built  around  the  activities  of  the 
will ,  for  it  is  the  only  thing  of  which  we  are  definitely 
sure.  “There  is  absolutely  nothing  outside  of  man, 
nor  in  him,  which  he  can  call  fully  and  wholly  his  own, 
except  his  will.” 

All  experiences  cluster  about  the  will,  not  because 
there  is  an  external  initiating  force,  but  because  in  the 
will  and  only  in  the  will  itself  there  is  a  spontaneity 
of  activity  which  is  responsible  for  all  relationships. 
The  organization  of  activities  toward  ends  originates 
and  is  sustained  by  the  psychical  processes  representing 
the  will. 

God  is  the  universal  Will  and  its  objectivation  is 
the  realization  of  itself  in  the  will  units  of  the  world, 
in  which  there  is  an  opposition  of  activity  and  pas¬ 
sivity,  constituting  ultimate  reality.  It  is  only  as 
every  will  is  related  to  wills  that  this  reciprocal  rela¬ 
tionship  is  obtained  and  it  is  only  in  these  reciprocal 
experiences,  which  offer  an  explanation  for  the  pas¬ 
sive  state,  that  we  have  reality. 

SCHOPENHAUER 

To  get  Schopenhauer’s  idea  of  the  qualitative  as¬ 
pects  of  reality  we  must  understand  what  an  important 


SUPPORT  FOR  THE  SPIRITUAL  THEORY  81 


place  he  gives  to  will.  He  would  say  the  very  essence 
of  life  is  the  will.  This  principle  will  is  inherent  and 
dominant  not  only  in  man  but  in  all  things.  It  is  the 
guiding,  driving  force  in  the  general  process  of  evolu¬ 
tion.  In  the  principle  of  selection  which  seems  to  be 
operating  all  the  time,  it  is  the  will  which  causes  cer¬ 
tain  parts  of  the  organisms  to  grow  and  adjust  them¬ 
selves  for  particular  duties  while  at  the  same  time  al¬ 
lowing  others  to  die.  For  instance,  some  animals  are 
equipped  with  instruments  for  fighting  and  killing,  be¬ 
cause  that  is  what  they  will  to  do.  The  will  not  only  aids 
in  the  organization  of  the  organisms  but  enjoys  a  pre¬ 
existence  in  relation  to  them.  Amid  all  those  things 
which  come  and  go,  it  is  the  abiding  fact.  All  things 
are  the  product  of  the  will.  The  world  is  but  this 
principle  realizing  its  great  ends.  The  will  is  much 
greater  than  the  phenomenal  world  which  is  just  the 
object  of  thought;  it  is  greater  than  thought  which  is 
simply  its  by-product.  This  striving  principle  then , 
which  is  reality  for  Schopenhauer ,  must  be  given  a  set¬ 
ting  in  spiritualism  far  above  everything  that  partakes 
of  the  material. 


plato’s  idealism 

The  philosophy  of  Plato  is  presented  at  this  time  in 
our  study  of  energy,  not  because  it  is  energetic  but 
because  his  elaborate  system  of  idealism  makes  a  large 
contribution  toward  the  unfolding  of  our  immediate 
problem — showing  that  reality  is  to  be  interpreted 
spiritually. 

In  Plato,  the  first  and  greatest  idealist,  we  meet  an 


82 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


exalted  and  beautiful  system  which  believes  there  are 
higher  realities  than  matter  and  motion  and  the  world 
of  sense  perception.  “Plato  points  up,  Aristotle 
down.”  Most  fundamental  in  his  philosophy  is  the 
search  for  ultimate  and  absolute  values,  the  abiding 
and  unchanging  elements  in  the  flux  of  phenomena. 
Plato  believed  with  Browning  that  there  is  a  right 
ever  right  and  a  wrong  ever  wrong. 

True  knowledge  does  not  come  to  us  by  way  of  the 
senses.  Such  knowledge,  often  being  deceiving,  is 
simply  opinion.  The  highest  type,  the  scientific,  comes 
from  the  mind  through  thought  and  reason.  Matter 
is  not  the  reality  of  the  world.  Plato  would  say  with 
James  that  the  world  of  wind  and  weather  is  not  the 
real  world.  Outside  the  scope  of  the  senses  is  another 
realm ,  a  spiritual  world,  the  realm  of  ideals ,  of  values . 
It  is  possible  for  us  to  rise  above  the  world  of  shadows 
into  this  realm  of  being,  into  the  real  world  of  ideas. 

With  Plato,  ideas  only  are  real;  all  else  is  simply  ap¬ 
pearance.  These  ideas  are  incorporeal,  immaterial,  but 
are  hardly  psychical  or  spiritual  according  to  the  mod¬ 
ern  interpretation  of  these  terms,  ideas  belonging  to 
even  a  higher  state  of  being  than  the  psychical  or  spirit¬ 
ual.  He  would  place  the  psychical  functions  in  the 
world  of  Becoming  and  would  place  ideas  in  the  realm 
of  Being.  Ideas  are  not  necessarily  in  the  mind  but 
are  essences,  ideals,  the  highest  and  best  being  those 
of  the  Good.  In  this  program  ados  is  that  something 
which  science  has  been  eagerly  striving  to  know,  real¬ 
ity  itself.  “The  world  of  true  reality  is  but  never  be¬ 
comes;  the  world  of  relative  reality  becomes  but  never 


SUPPORT  FOR  THE  SPIRITUAL  THEORY  83 


“The  unfathomable  depth  of  human  personality  is 
essentially  Plato’s  doctrine.”  Reality  is  divine  and  the 
soul  is  akin  to  it.  The  Soul  is  a  simple,  incorporeal 
being  belonging  both  to  the  world  of  ideas  and  the 
world  of  sensuous  material  change,  but  belongs  pri¬ 
marily  to  the  higher  world.  It  is  the  principle  of  life 
and  motion. 

Hence  Plato  is  considered  the  father  of  idealism,  and 
as  over  against  mechanical  force,  he  makes  intelligence 
to  be  the  real  moving  power  in  the  world.  This  places 
him  in  the  forefront  of  those  who  have  taught  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  the  invisible  soul  operating  in  Nature,  and  who 
have  given  an  interpretation  of  reality  diametrically 
opposed  to  materialism. 

SYSTEMS  PARTIALLY  SPIRITUALISTIC 

There  are  four  important  systems  of  thought  which 
probably  have  no  definite  place  in  a  program  whose 
chief  immediate  interest  is  in  trying  to  show  that  all 
things  are  of  a  spiritual  nature,  even  the  very  world  of 
“material  phenomena” — Aristotle,  the  Stoics,  Des¬ 
cartes,  and  Kant.  Especially  is  this  true  of  the  Stoics 
who  were  really  materialists  and  of  Descartes  with 
whom  mind  and  matter  are  equally  real.  And  while 
these  systems*  by  no  means  make  spirit  all  of  reality 
and  cannot  even  approach  being  classified  as  spiritualis¬ 
tic,  we  mention  them  here,  parenthetically,  to  show 
how  unable  were  the  leaders  in  these  schools  of  thought 
to  complete  their  systems  without  giving  a  “real”  place 
to  spirit.  This  is  particularly  true  of  Kant’s  philosophy, 
but  let  us  first  examine  Aristotle. 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


84s 

ARISTOTLE 

To  understand  Aristotle’s  philosophy  of  reality  it  is 
necessary  to  know  his  meaning  of  tyvxrj  because  it  is 
to  this  that  he  gives  supreme  place  in  all  life  and 
activity.  With  him  ipvxv  (breath)  is  more  than  we 
mean  by  soul;  it  really  represents  what  is  wrapped 
up  in  the  terms  Life  and  Mind,  and  we  have  no  Eng¬ 
lish  word  which  can  represent  the  combined  thought. 
Sometimes  it  is  called  Vital  Principle,  sometimes  Soul. 
This  Vital  Principle,  though  there  is  just  one,  has  its 
representation  in  every  part  of  the  body.  It  and  the 
body  are  not  one,  but  they  so  relate  themselves  to 
each  other  as  to  constitute  a  unity.  As  Life  finds  its 
highest  expression  in  Mind,  so  the  chief  characteristic 
of  the  Soul  or  Vital  Principle  is  thought. 

This  Vital  Principle  is  the  essence  of  Life.  It  is  “the 
original  reality  of  a  natural  body  endowed  with  po¬ 
tential  life.  ...  If  then  there  be  any  general  formula 
for  every  kind  of  Vital  Principle  it  is — the  primary 
reality  of  an  organism.”  3  It  is  a  vitalizing  influence, 
not  only  holding  the  body  together  but  constituting  the 
energy  of  the  body.  This  is  true  not  only  of  man  but 
also  of  all  animals  and  plants  as  well.  In  plants  and 
all  such  simple  organisms  the  Vital  Principle  is  of  a 
lower  degree  of  vitality.  Aristotle  was  not  sure 
whether  this  Soul  experiences  self-activity  or  is  moved 
by  some  outside  force,  but  if  the  latter  be  true  the 
operation  of  the  outside  influence  is  possible  only 
through  the  sensations  as  a  medium.  So  we  find  his 

3  Aristotle,  Lewes,  p.  231. 


SUPPORT  FOR  THE  SPIRITUAL  THEORY  85 


i)VXV  >  “the  breath  of  life  ”  as  a  “primary  reality  ”  to 
be  not  only  dynamic  but  also  spiritual. 


STOICS 

Even  in  the  Stoics  a  spiritual  strain  is  seen  running 
through  their  idea  of  the  real.  In  matter  we  find 
Spirit;  in  the  world,  God.  In  fact  the  world  and  God 
seem  to  constitute  something  of  an  identity,  God  being 
a  vital  element  pervading  all  things,  the  very  Soul  of 
the  world.  God,  however,  is  not  made  to  be  so  gen¬ 
eral  as  to  rule  out  his  individual  consciousness.  Be¬ 
tween  all  things  enjoying  a  conscious  soul  life  there 
is  a  definite  relationship,  closer  than  that  which  they 
experience  with  lower  types  of  creation.  The  Stoics 
would  not  only  say  that  everything  outside  of  God  is 
his  body  but  that  all  these  things  came  from  his  own 
self  and  thither  will  return  again.  God  being  a  soul, 
then  everything  can  be  traced  in  its  origin  to  a  soul 
life,  and  must  partake  somewhat  of  the  qualities  of  the 
great  Spirit. 


DESCARTES 

With  Descartes  the  fundamental  principle  is  con¬ 
scious  thought.  He  seems  to  have  brushed  all  else 
aside  as  uncertain  and  gave  to  philosophy  a  new  start¬ 
ing  point.  He  would  say  we  cannot  build  our  system 
of  philosophy  on  things  external  which  we  do  not 
know.  Only  those  things  “which  are  clearly  and  dis- 


86 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


tinctly  perceived  are  true.”  Cogito,  ergo  sum — I 
think,  therefore  I  am.  The  fact  that  I  think  establishes 
the  thinker  as  a  certainty.  Even  in  doubting  we  have 
evidence  of  a  thinking  doubter.  We  can  doubt  every¬ 
thing  else  but  not  the  doubter,  of  which  we  are  certainly 
conscious.  Thus  consciousness  becomes  the  criterion 
of  knowledge,  and  the  thinking,  psychical  being  is  the 
only  certain,  and  the  most  real,  thing  in  all  the  zvorld. 
Thus  according  to  Descartes  the  successful  search  for 
real  values,  ultimate  reality,  leads  into  the  field  of 
psychical  interpretation. 

KANT 

At  first,  Kant’s  philosophy  seems  to  be  a  system  of 
mere  phenomena.  We  begin  with  the  presupposition 
that  the  real  things  of  the  world  are  those  which  are 
objects  of  sense.  We  find  then  that  these  are  phenom¬ 
ena  only.  It  is  soon  seen,  however,  that  Kant  is  not 
willing  to  stop  here.  Since  the  mind  is  not  satisfied 
with  less  than  a  complete  whole  and  since  knowledge 
does  not  give  this  to  us,  we  are  compelled  to  base  our 
hopes  on  an  investigation  of  moral  consciousness.  In 
this  search  Kant  is  led  to  feel  sure  that  back  of  phe¬ 
nomena  there  is  a  world  of  ultimate  reality  and  his  in¬ 
vestigation  into  the  nature  and  limits  of  knowledge 
shows  to  him  the  possibility  of  a  noumenal  self  which 
is  free  and  untrammeled.  He  calls  this  the  “thing  in 
itself”  (Ding  an  sich),  that  something  which  is  left 
after  everything  with  which  the  senses  and  knowledge 
have  to  do  is  brushed  aside.  Although  it  can  be  in¬ 
terpreted  only  by  a  divine  intelligence  we  know  there 


SUPPORT  FOR  THE  SPIRITUAL  THEORY  87 


is  a  “thing  in  itself”  because  there  must  be  an  objective 
something  which  causes  our  sensations.  The  fact  that 
we  may  not  understand  noumenal  things  does  not  at 
all  exclude  the  possibility  of  their  existence. 

What  is  this  noumenal  something,  this  “thing  in  it¬ 
self”  which  lies  beyond  the  world  of  sense  and  knowl¬ 
edge?  Is  it  the  “I  think”  which  as  “an  act  of  spon¬ 
taneity,  cannot  possibly  be  due  to  sense,”  4  and  “which 
because  of  its  spontaneous  activity,  is  the  only  thing 
to  which  we  may  possibly  attribute  noumenal 
reality”  ?  4  Is  it  the  will  which  with  Kant  is  the  only 
absolutely  good  thing  in  the  world  and  which  is  good 
because  it  wills  to  be  good  ?  These  two,  the  “I  think” 
and  the  will  are  identical,  for  to  both  he  attributes  the 
qualities  of  complete  noumena.  “This  spontaneous 
activity,  the  T  think’  of  the  Critique  of  Pure  Reason  is 
nothing  else  than  the  autonomous  will  (final  reality) 
of  the  Metaphysic  of  Morality  and  the  later 
Critiques.”  5  And  it  is  in  the  doctrine  of  the  primacy 
of  the  will  we  meet  the  real  Kant;  with  him  the  will 
stands  for  absolute  values.  Thus  with  Kant  the  realm 
of  real  things  reaches  beyond  the  world  of  material 
phenomena ,  into  the  richer  world  of  psychical  relation¬ 
ships . 


BERGSON 

We  now  come  to  Bergson  and  find  him  teaching  a 
system  of  philosophy  which  offers  genuine  support  to 
a  spiritualistic  program.  In  the  first  Part  it  was  found 

4  Watson’s  Selections  from  Kant,  p.  65. 

5  Schreiber,  Kant’s  Theory  of  the  Primacy  of  the  Will,  p.  28. 


88 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


that  Bergson  introduced  into  his  conception  of  reality 
a  dynamic  element  which  he  called  the  vital  impetus. 
At  that  time  we  were  satisfied  with  the  discovery  of 
this  single  fact,  but  now  we  want  to  get  his  idea  of 
this  vitalistic  quality  which  is  so  fundamental  to  life. 
So  from  a  qualitative  standpoint  we  shall  probe  deeper 
into  his  philosophy  of  reality  to  see  if  it  is  not  of  a 
psychical  order. 

In  his  Creative  Evolution  is  met  the  belief  that 
every  moment  brings  something  new  into  existence. 
“Reality  appears  as  a  ceaseless  up-springing  of  some¬ 
thing  new,  which  has  no  sooner  arisen  to  make  the  pres¬ 
ent  than  it  has  already  fallen  back  into  the  past.”  6 
Life  is  one  continuous  process  of  Becoming;  it  “is  a 
tendency,  and  the  essence  of  a  tendency  is  to  develop  in 
the  form  of  a  sheaf,  creating  by  its  very  growth,  di¬ 
vergent  directions  among  which  its  impetus  is  di¬ 
vided.”  7 

Fundamental  in  this  process  of  development  is  the 
original  impetus  of  life  which  passes  from  one  genera¬ 
tion  of  germs  to  another.  This  is  the  inner  directing 
principle,  the  ultimately  real  factor  that  drives  all 
things  to  an  activity  and  not  only  carries  life  but  is  the 
essence  of  all  life.  This  vital  principle  takes  matter 
and  shapes  it.  “Life  had  to  enter  thus  into  the  habits 
of  inert  matter  in  order  to  draw  it  little  by  little,  mag¬ 
netized,  as  it  were,  to  another  track.  The  animate 
forms  that  first  appeared  were  therefore  of  extreme 
simplicity.  They  were  probably  tiny  masses  of  scarcely 
differentiated  protoplasm,  outwardly  resembling  the 

6  Creative  Evolution ,  p.  47. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  99. 


SUPPORT  FOR  THE  SPIRITUAL  THEORY  89 


amoeba  observable  to-day,  but  possessed  of  the  tremen¬ 
dous  internal  push  that  was  to  raise  them  even  to  the 
highest  forms  of  life.  That  in  virtue  of  this  push  the 
first  organisms  sought  to  grow  as  much  as  possible, 
seems  likely.”  8  But  the  matter  with  which  the  origi¬ 
nal  impetus  has  to  work  is  not  a  hard,  cold  substance. 
Characterized  by  a  “tendency,”  an  ascending  move¬ 
ment,  matter  finds  itself  susceptible  to  the  guiding, 
shaping  influence  of  the  vital  impetus. 

In  trying  to  find  an  image  that  will  give  us  an  idea 
of  this  impetus  Bergson  has  to  leave  the  physical  world 
and  go  to  the  psychical.  Consciousness  becomes  for 
him  the  motive  principle  in  all  development.  He  says 
that  “if  our  analysis  is  correct,  it  is  consciousness,  or 
rather  supra-consciousness,  that  is  at  the  origin  of 
life.”  9  Consciousness  then,  which  is  real  life,  is  the 
representation  of  that  vital  principle  which  pervades 
all  things.  We  are  told  that  there  is  a  consciousness 
slumbering  in  instinct,  which  if  finding  expression 
through  knowledge  instead  of  action  would  reveal  to 
us  the  deepest  secrets  of  life.  In  his  Creative  Evolu¬ 
tion  we  hear  him  say  that  “real  duration  is  to  be 
found  in  the  realm  of  life  and  consciousness”  and  in 
his  Introduction  to  Metaphysics  he  says  that  “real 
duration  is  of  a  psychical  nature.”  Thus  we  are  not 
surprised  to  hear  him  say  that  “in  reality,  life  is  of  the 
psychological  order,  and  it  is  of  the  essence  of  the 
psychical  to  enfold  a  confused  plurality  of  interpene¬ 
trating  forms.”  In  summing  up  it  can  be  said  that 
“he  sees  as  the  mystic  sees,  that  the  Elan  Vital  is  the 
energy  of  one  Being  which  makes  matter  its  means  of 

9  Ibid.,  p.  25 7. 


8  Ibid.,  p.  99. 


90 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


manifestation,  its  vehicle,  its  tool.  He  sees  that  the 
process  of  Becoming  is  a  spiritual  process  of  ascen¬ 
sion ”  10 

Corroboration  of  this  interpretation  of  Bergson  is 
found  in  the  Preface  to  Carr’s  translation  of  Mind- 
Energy.  After  saying  that  Bergson  went  over  the 
material  very  carefully  with  him  in  order  to  give  the 
translation  the  same  authority  as  the  original  French, 
Carr  then  says  that  “the  separate  articles  here  collected 
and  selected  .  .  .  are  chosen  by  M.  Bergson  with  the 
view  of  illustrating  his  concept  that  reality  is  funda¬ 
mentally  a  spiritual  activity  !’  11 


EUCKEN  AND  ROYCE 

In  Eucken  and  Royce  we  have  two  men  who  have 
strongly  represented  a  philosophy  of  spiritualism,  both 
of  whose  systems  have  a  distinctly  religious  bent. 
Royce  is  convinced  that  true  reality  is  spiritual  in  its 
nature  and  that  the  ultimate  ground  of  things  is  an 
eternal,  divine  world-order.  “From  the  constant  in¬ 
teraction  of  minds  he  infers  the  existence  of  an  eternal, 
divine  being  which  is  spiritual  and  eternal.”  12  Royce 
thinks  “we  have  no  right  whatever  to  speak  of  really 
unconscious  Nature,  but  only  of  uncommunicative  Na¬ 
ture,”  and  when  we  deal  with  Nature  we  “deal  with  a 
vast  realm  of  finite  consciousness  of  which  our  own 
is  at  once  a  part  and  an  example.”  13 

10  Sinclair,  Defense  of  Idealism,  p.  288.  (Italics  are  mine.) 

11  Carr,  Preface  to  Bergson’s  Mind-Energy,  p.  v.  (Italics  are 
mine.) 

12  Jerusalem,  Introduction  to  Philosophy,  pp.  150-151. 

13  Royce,  The  World  and  the  Individual,  pp.  225-226. 


SUPPORT  FOR  THE  SPIRITUAL  THEORY  91 


Eucken  looks  within  the  thinking  creature  for  the 
source  of  reality.  “It  is  impossible  to  hide  from  our¬ 
selves  that  Nature,  as  we  see  it,  does  not  come  to  us 
from  the  outside  as  a  ready-made  fact,  but  that  it 
starts  from  our  own  thinking,  and  under  the  influence 
of  our  intellectual  organization,  takes  on  the  shape  in 
which  it  lies  before  us.”  14  He  teaches  a  monism  which 
is  really  an  important  process,  deeper  than  and  funda¬ 
mental  to  both  materialism  and  spiritualism.  Eucken 
lifts  his  philosophy  into  the  realm  of  life  itself  and  life 
becomes  “a  transformation  of  reality  into  a  whole 
endowed  with  soul.”  This  resultant,  vital  process 
becomes  the  goal  and  reality  of  life,  because  in  itself 
complete  satisfaction  and  fullness  are  realized.  In  this 
real  activity  the  revivifying,  guiding,  controlling  ele¬ 
ment  is  the  spiritual  which  enjoys  perfection  and  com¬ 
pleteness  only  as  it  masters  matter. 

So  in  all  the  systems  which  we  have  reviewed,  the 
search  for  truth  about  reality  takes  us  past  things  ma¬ 
terial  and  points  with  strong  emphasis  to  the  realm  of 
the  spiritual.  And  that  something  which  Plato  calls 
ideas,  Leibnitz  monads,  Schopenhauer  will,  Bergson 
the  vital  impetus,  and  which  we  are  calling  energy  is 
to  be  interpreted  as  a  spiritual  force. 

14  Eucken,  The  Life  of  the  Spirit,  p.  188.  (Translation  by 
Pogson.) 


Chapter  III 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION- 

CONCLUDED 

Since  we  have  found  that  all  physical  reality  is 
energy,  and  then  further  set  forth  the  hypothesis  that 
the  ultimate  quality  of  energy  is  psychical,  we  would 
seem  to  be  in  position  to  interpret  the  well-known  facts 
regarding  the  influence  of  the  mind  upon  the  body  in 
a  new  and  seemingly  satisfactory  way — making  the 
mind  and  body  to  be  parts  of  one  vast  system  of  psychi¬ 
cal  energy.  Hitherto  this  whole  problem  has  per¬ 
plexed  thinkers  from  Descartes  to  the  present,  and  as 
yet  the  effect  of  the  mind  upon  the  body  has  not  been 
consistently  explained.  A  thorough-going  dualism, 
even  though  it  has  been  resuscitated  by  McDougall,1 
is  repugnant  to  the  law  of  continuity,  which  evolution 
has  so  greatly  strengthened. 

After  finding  spiritualism  able  to  make  a  definite 
contribution  toward  a  better  understanding  of  such 
significant  problems  as  creation,  vitalism,  teleology, 
and  evolution;  and  finding  in  the  history  of  thought 
such  strong  support  for  the  spiritualistic  interpreta¬ 
tion,  it  probably  would  be  in  order  at  this  place  in  our 
program  of  showing  that  energy  is  spiritual,  to  intro¬ 
duce  as  a  genuine  presupposition  a  psychic  element 
active  in  all  Nature.  It  may  be,  however,  that  the  ma¬ 
terialist  would  still  challenge  our  right  to  this  assump- 

1  McDougall,  Body  and  Mind. 

92 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  93 


tion,  saying  that  our  source  of  explanation  is  not  suf¬ 
ficiently  criticized.  Then  we  might  reply  by  placing 
the  burden  of  proof  with  the  individual  of  this  atti¬ 
tude  and  assign  to  him  the  more  difficult  task  of  show¬ 
ing  why,  if  all  Nature  is  not  endowed  with  a  psychic 
quality,  it  acts  so  much  like  it ;  why  it  seems  that 

“Every  clod  feels  a  stir  of  might, 

An  instinct  within  that  reaches  and  towers; 

And  groping  blindly  above  it  for  light, 

Climbs  to  a  soul  in  grass  and  flowers.” 

But  this  method  of  procedure  would  get  us  no  place 
in  particular.  So  before  drawing  conclusions  we  shall 
need  to  look  at  our  problem  a  little  further. 

Our  work  here  in  dealing  with  the  qualitative  as¬ 
pects  of  energy,  which  we  are  calling  reality,  cannot 
be  taken  into  the  laboratory  and  handled  as  an  ordinary 
scientific  problem.  We  must  search  for  facts  in  sys¬ 
tems  of  thought  and  test  these  beliefs  by  their  practi¬ 
cal  consequences,  judging  not  by  laws,  customs,  or 
principles  but  by  fruits.  We  have  already  done  this  in 
a  general  way  in  the  case  of  such  facts  as  creation,  vi¬ 
talism,  teleology,  and  evolution. 

In  this  chapter  it  will  be  our  plan  first  to  examine 
the  relationship  between  mind  and  body.  From  this 
investigation  it  will  seem  probably  true  that  the  mind 
is  the  ultimately  guiding,  determining,  and  original 
factor  figuring  in  these  relationships.  While  there 
may  be  evidence  denying  the  priority  of  mind  this 
excursus  will  at  least  make  it  impossible,  seemingly,  to 
doubt  the  existence  of  a  psychical  element.  Then  later 
we  shall  apply  the  attitude  of  representative  modern 


94 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


thought  to  our  hypothesis,  trying  further  to  show  that 
psychical  energy  is  a  fact,  that  it  is  universal  and  the 
only  reality,  and  finally  suggest  a  theory  of  reality  on 
the  basis  of  organized  units  of  psychical  energy.  If 
ancient  and  modern  thought,  consciously  or  uncon¬ 
sciously,  declares  itself  in  favor  of  our  hypothesis  it  is 
because  the  belief  in  psychical  reality  has  stood  the 
test;  and  if  the  converging  lines  of  testimony  in  its 
favor  are  sufficient,  then  it  should  be  regarded  as  true. 

THE  MIND-BODY  PROBLEM 

It  is  very  clear  that  science  is  not  willing  to  stop  with 
the  well-established  hypothesis  which  says,  no  psych¬ 
osis  without  a  neurosis.  Thus  we  want  to  go  beneath 
this,  if  possible,  and  get  a  clew  concerning  this  rela¬ 
tionship  between  the  mind  and  body.  In  the  first  place 
we  shall  introduce  the  part  which  will  plays  in  de¬ 
termining  the  issues  of  the  bodily  functions.  As  we 
proceed  it  is  seen  that  in  a  large  measure  Kant  was 
right  in  believing  we  can  do  what  we  will  to  do. 

The  field  is  large  from  which  could  be  culled  facts 
having  to  do  with  the  power  of  the  will  over  the  body, 
but  from  a  multiplicity  of  experiences  we  mention 
simply  the  case  of  an  individual  who  is  severely  ill, 
life  being  in  the  very  balance.  By  sheer  determination 
to  live,  sufficient  vitality  is  thrown  on  the  side  of  life, 
and  will  becomes  the  determining  factor,  cheating  death 
of  its  victim.  A  leading  physician  at  one  of  the  large 
camps  during  the  influenza  epidemic  declared  that  the 
large  number  of  deaths  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  95 


men  being  away  from  home,  many  for  the  first  time, 
and  being  afraid,  “gave  up”  instead  of  exercising  a 
will  power  to  live. 

It  is  remarkable  what  influence  the  attention  has 
been  found  to  have  on  sensations.  When  setting  our¬ 
selves  to  the  task  it  is  possible  to  think  into  being  a 
large  variety  of  sensation  experiences.  For  instance, 
when  the  attention  is  concentrated  on  the  hand  we  can 
feel  sensations  glide  from  warm  to  cold,  numbness, 
pins  and  needles,  etc.,  just  as  the  mind  dictates.  In 
remembering  the  sensation  associated  with  eating  an 
unpeeled  peach,  the  teeth  are  set  on  edge  just  the  same 
as  in  the  actual  experience.  Some  would  dismiss  all 
this  by  saying  that  it  is  subjective,  just  imagination, 
but  facts  encourage  us  to  believe  with  Tuke  that  “there 
is  a  real  effect  produced  upon  the  finger  if  thought  is 
sufficiently  long  directed  to  it,  and  that  these  vascular 
changes  are  felt  in  the  form  of  throbbing,  weight, 
etc.”  2 

Science  sees  also  a  direct  relationship  between  the 
emotions  and  the  secretive  processes.  It  has  been  found 
that  glands  will  often  secrete  freely  when  there  is  no 
immediate  cause  other  than  some  irregular  mental  ac¬ 
tivity,  like  imagination.  It  has  been  noticed  that  the 
mammary  glands  of  a  nursing  mother  will  often  se¬ 
crete  milk  when  she  thinks  of  feeding  the  child.  Also 
it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  mental  strain  will  cause 
the  hair  to  turn  gray  in  a  very  short  time. 

It  naturally  follows  that  the  emotions  are  being 
closely  associated  with  the  work  of  the  digestive  ap- 

2  Tuke,  Influence  of  the  Mind  upon  the  Body,  p.  57. 


96 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


paratus,  as  they  assist  or  retard  the  necessary  secre¬ 
tions.  The  emotions  cannot  only  paralyze  the  activi¬ 
ties  of  the  stomach  but  have  a  direct  influence  on  the 
entire  Alimentary  Canal.  This  is  the  reason  why  chil¬ 
dren  should  not  be  fed  after  being  punished  or  experi¬ 
encing  excitement  of  any  kind.  Perhaps  the  secretions 
of  the  salivary  glands  are  most  noticeably  affected  by 
the  emotions.  And  just  as  the  mouth  becomes  dry  or 
saliva  flows  freely  according  to  the  emotion  experi¬ 
enced,  we  get  a  good  idea  of  how  the  other  secretions, 
such  as  gastric  and  pancreatic  juices  and  bile,  are  influ¬ 
enced  by  these  psychic  states.  It  is  not  strange  then 
that  indigestion  in  many  cases  has  been  traced  in  its 
origin  to  psychic  irregularities. 

Cannon  tells  about  some  very  interesting  experi¬ 
ments  performed  on  dogs  by  Pawlow,  showing  the 
direct  and  immediate  influence  of  psychic  states  on  the 
secretions.3  In  the  dog’s  stomach  a  side  pouch  was 
made,  wholly  apart  from  the  main  cavity  where  the 
food  entered  the  stomach.  This  part  which  was  under 
observation  was  representative  of  the  entire  stomach. 
In  some  cases  during  this  experiment  an  opening  was 
made  in  the  esophagus  so  that  the  food  being  chewed 
and  swallowed  would  pass  out  through  the  opening  and 
not  reach  the  stomach  at  all.  This  was  called  “sham 
feeding.”  In  this  way  all  the  pleasure  of  eating  was 
experienced  without  the  food  getting  any  further  than 
the  esophagus.  It  was  found  that  about  five  minutes 
after  the  dogs  enjoyed  the  food  and  went  through  the 
process  of  swallowing,  the  gastric  juice  began  to  flow 

3  Cannon,  Bodily  Changes  in  Pain,  Hunger,  Fear,  and  Rage,  p. 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  97 

from  the  pouch  in  the  stomach.  This  continued  as 
long  as  the  dogs  ate  food  and  for  a  short  time  after 
the  meal  was  eaten.  One  very  interesting  thing  ob¬ 
served  was  that  while  pleasure  encouraged  the  flow  of 
gastric  juice,  anger  or  fright  had  the  opposite  effect, 
which  confirms  our  statement  made  above,  that  certain 
emotions  can  check  secretions  and  thus  interfere  with 
the  digestion  of  food.  Cannon  says  that  “since  the 
flow  occurred  only  when  the  dogs  had  an  appetite,  and 
the  material  presented  to  them  was  agreeable,  the  con¬ 
clusion  was  justified  that  this  was  a  true  psychic  secre¬ 
tion.”  4 

The  emotions  have  been  found  to  affect  the  heart 
also.  It  will  beat  faster  as  it  contracts  irregularly,  if 
the  individual  is  frightened.  Dying  of  a  “broken 
heart”  as  the  result  of  worry  and  sadness  is  no  mere 
figure  of  speech.  On  the  other  hand  the  heart  often 
has  been  too  severely  strained  by  the  sudden  announce¬ 
ment  of  good  news,  resulting  in  death  in  many  cases. 

Mental  strain  has  its  definite  effects  on  the  liver  and 
kidneys.  One  scientist  says  that  a  depressed  mind,  if 
of  a  sufficient  duration  of  time,  will  actually  change 
the  structure  of  the  liver.  In  the  Medical  Times  and 
Gazette  is  published  the  findings  of  Dr.  Byasson  in  a 
test  made  of  the  renal  secretion  passed  under  condi¬ 
tions  of  normal  quiet  and  cerebral  activity.  The  sum¬ 
mary  is  as  follows : 5 

(i)  “The  exercise  of  thought  was  followed  by  an 
increase  in  the  amount  of  urine.” 

*Ibid.,  pp.  5-6. 

5  Quoted  from  Tuke,  p.  135. 


98 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


( 2  )  “The  amount  of  urea  was  augmented  in  a  marked 
manner,  there  being  about  a  drachm  more  on  the  day 
of  cerebral  work  than  on  that  of  repose.” 

(3)  “A  slight  but  uniform  increase  in  the  amount 
of  phosphates  and  sulphates  during  mental  activity.” 

(4)  “The  density,  acidity,  the  uric  acid,  lime,  mag¬ 
nesia  and  potash  were  scarcely  affected.  Chlorine  was 
less  in  amount.” 

Dr.  Byasson  states  that  by  a  single  analysis  of  the 
urine  he  is  able  to  tell  whether  the  individual  has  spent 
the  day  in  repose  or  mental  activity,  the  diet  and  en¬ 
vironment  being  the  same  for  the  three  days  of  test.6 

In  the  category  of  facts  which  show  the  controlling 
influence  of  the  psychic  states  over  the  body  there  is 
none  more  significant  than  the  way  emotional  experi¬ 
ences  affect  the  activities  of  the  blood.  “Hemorrhage 
is  often  increased  by  attention,  but  whether  by  excite¬ 
ment  to  the  heart’s  action  or  by  direct  influence  on  the 
vessels  of  the  part  cannot  easily  be  decided.”  The  fact, 
however  concerns  us  here  more  than  the  method.  It 
seems  that  concentration  of  thought  can  send  blood  to 
the  place  supposed  to  be  affected.  The  stigmata  of 
St.  Francis  of  Assisi  has  a  place  in  this  discussion. 
Some  may  want  to  rule  out  this  experience  because  it 
seems  to  be  so  irregular  and  mysterious.  But  until 
history  can  deny  the  fact  it  will  stand  as  a  remarkable 
illustration  of  the  influence  of  the  mind  upon  the  body. 

Another  case  of  stigmata  mentioned  by  Tuke  is  that 
of  Louise  Lateau.  When  M.  Charbonnier  presented 
an  article  to  the  Royal  Academy  of  Medicine  of  Bel¬ 
gium,  reviewing  the  case  of  Louise,  this  organization 


6  Quoted  from  Tuke,  p.  135. 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  99 


appointed  a  Commission  to  examine  her  before  they 
would  accept  the  article  for  publication.  This  Com¬ 
mission  was  to  see  if  blood  really  did  ooze  from  her 
side,  feet,  hands,  and  forehead.  The  examination  was 
made  while  she  was  going  through  the  experience  and 
the  blood  was  flowing  from  her  body.  We  cannot  re¬ 
view  the  case  in  detail  here  but  simply  state  that  the 
conclusion  reached  by  the  Commission  was  that  “the 
stigmata  and  ecstasies  are  real.  They  can  be  explained 
physiologically.”  7  In  the  light  of  such  facts  as  these 
it  is  not  hard  to  believe  that  in  the  agony  of  Gethsemane 
Jesus  sweat  drops  of  blood. 

One  of  the  most  specific  effects  of  emotional  ex¬ 
perience  on  the  blood  is  to  be  observed  in  the  adrenal 
glands  pouring  their  secretions  into  the  blood  circula¬ 
tion  as  the  result  of  psychic  excitation.  Cannon  and 
D.  de  la  Paz  have  performed  experiments  in  their 
laboratories  clearly  demonstrating  this  fact.  The  ani¬ 
mal  used  was  a  cat.  The  method  used  for  frightening 
the  cat  was  a  barking  dog  which  was  allowed  to  enjoy 
himself  at  a  safe  distance  while  the  cat  was  securely 
fastened  in  a  holder.  By  a  very  careful  operation 
blood  was  secured  from  near  the  adrenal  glands  before 
and  after  the  fright  of  the  cat  and  labeled  “quiet 
blood”  and  “excited  blood.”  In  the  “excited  blood” 
was  found  a  much  larger  amount  of  adrenalin.  It  was 
also  observed  that  the  secretion  of  the  adrenal  glands 
increased  with  emotions.  Then  the  glands  were  re¬ 
moved  with  the  result  that  the  blood  was  not  then  af¬ 
fected  with  adrenalin. 

The  fact  that  during  these  psychic  experiences  the 
7  Ibid.,  p.  1 19. 


100 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


adrenal  glands  shoot  adrenalin  into  the  blood  is  not  the 
whole  lesson  to  be  learned  by  any  means.  Cannon 
would  not  feel  that  this  is  the  “end”  attained  but  sim¬ 
ply  the  “means.”  We  learn  from  him  that  injecting 
adrenalin  into  the  blood  causes  the  liver  to  liberate 
sugar  into  the  blood;  helps  in  a  faster  coagulation; 
drives  blood  from  abdominal  viscera  into  heart,  lungs, 
central  nervous  system,  and  limbs;  acts  as  an  antidote 
for  muscular  fatigue.  So  it  seems  from  this  and 
other  facts  which  have  been  set  forth  that  psychic 
activities  touch  in  a  concrete  way  the  very  last  iota  of 
being  in  the  body.  In  other  words,  psychical  energy 
seems  to  be  a  genuine  fact ,  constituting  the  ultimately 
guiding  and  determining  factor  in  all  human  experi¬ 
ences. 


PSYCHICAL  ENERGY  AND  MODERN  THOUGHT 

Perhaps  from  the  foregoing  it  would  seem  reasona¬ 
ble  to  believe  that  the  ultimate  quality  of  reality  is 
psychical  or  spiritual.  But  let  us  look  at  this  problem 
a  little  further,  and,  studying  it  in  the  light  of  recent 
movements  of  thought,  see  if  corroboration  of  our  hy¬ 
pothesis  can  be  obtained. 

DE  TUNZELMANN 

According  to  de  Tunzelmann  this  hypothesis  is  the 
only  alternative.  “Schemes  have  been  propounded 
with  a  view  of  accounting  for  the  established  order  of 
Nature  without  the  assumption  of  a  primal  intelligence 
.  .  .  no  scheme  of  the  kind  has  ever  been  presented 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  101 


which  would  appear  even  superficially  plausible  to  any 
but  untrained  minds.  ...  In  the  present  state  of  scien¬ 
tific  knowledge  we  are  justified  in  maintaining  that  the 
possibility  of  such  a  scheme  is  unthinkable.  ...  I 
propose  to  introduce  the  concept  of  an  all-pervading 
universal  mind  or  omnipresent  intelligence  forming  an 
entity  even  more  fundamental  than  the  all-pervading 
ether.”  8 


BERGSON 

In  Bergson’s  philosophy  there  is  a  graded  intelli¬ 
gence  which  reaches  below  the  animal  kingdom.  This 
reminds  us  somewhat  of  Leibnitz’  “confused  percep¬ 
tion”  which  is  met  in  the  lowest  type  of  being.  Berg¬ 
son  says :  “The  more  the  nervous  system  develops 
.  .  .  the  clearer  is  the  consciousness  .  .  .  the  lower 
we  descend  in  the  animal  series  the  more  the  nervous 
centers  are  simplified,  till  finally  the  nervous  elements 
disappear,  merged  in  the  mass  of  a  less  differentiated 
organism.  But  it  is  the  same  with  all  the  other  appara¬ 
tus,  with  all  the  other  anatomical  elements;  and  it 
would  be  as  absurd  to  refuse  consciousness  to  an  animal 
because  it  has  no  brain  as  to  declare  it  incapable  of 
nourishing  itself  because  it  has  no  stomach.  .  .  .  This 
amounts  to  saying  that  the  humblest  organism  is  con¬ 
scious  in  proportion  to  its  power  to  move  freely.  We 
should  define  the  animal  by  sensibility  and  awakened 
consciousness,  the  vegetable  by  consciousness  asleep  and 
insensibility.”  9  This  together  with  the  more  elaborate 

8  de  Tunzelmann,  The  Electrical  Theory  and  Problem  of  the 
Universe,  p.  454. 

9  Creative  Evolution,  pp.  110-112. 


102 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


treatment  of  Bergson’s  philosophy  in  the  chapter  on 
the  history  of  thought  leaves  no  uncertainty  as  to  his 
belief  in  psychical  being. 

PRAGMATISM 

A1  similar  attitude  is  met  in  modern  pragmatism.  In 
this  philosophical  system  “creative  intelligence”  is 
championed — a  pragmatic  theory  of  intelligence.  It 
is  an  intelligence  that  “frees  action  from  an  instru¬ 
mental  character,”  that  “frees  experience  from  rou¬ 
tine  and  caprice”;  an  intelligence  that  liberates  and 
liberalizes  action;  an  intelligence  that  is  “inherently 
forward  looking,”  which  can  forecast  future  possibili¬ 
ties  and  can  help  toward  the  good.  “A  pragmatic  in¬ 
telligence  is  a  creative  intelligence,  not  a  routine  me¬ 
chanic.”  10  In  this  system  the  problem  of  reality  is  not 
important  and  hence  there  is  no  attempted  explanation 
of  this  creative,  evolutionary  power.  But  since  it  has 
the  faculty  of  discerning  the  future  and  distinguishing 
between  the  desirable  and  undesirable  it  must  be  in¬ 
terpreted  as  having  a  psychical,  spiritual  nature.11 


PERRY 

In  Perry,  an  able  member  of  the  new  realistic  group, 
there  is  evidence  of  a  belief  in  the  presence  of  psychical 
reality.  He  says  that  “as  a  potentiality  without  as¬ 
signable  limits  it  (matter)  may  be  reasonably  endowed 

10  Dewey,  Creative  Intelligence,  pp.  63-66. 

11  Compare  Lovejoy’s  Article,  Journal  of  Philosophy,  Vol.  17 
(1920),  pp.  622-632. 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  103 


with  intellectual  force  as  with  physical  force.”  12  Then 
again,  he  says,  “If  it  is  impossible  to  construe  the 
world  in  terms  of  thought  or  in  terms  of  moral  life, 
there  yet  remains  a  further  conception,  complete  enough 
to  embrace  these  and  every  other  possible  value — the 
conception  of  a  universal  spiritual  life  (geistiges 
Leben)  that  shall  be  infinitely  various  and  infinitely 
rich.”  13  It  is  not  our  purpose  here  to  attempt  any  in¬ 
terpretation.  These  statements  are  simply  taken  at 
their  face  value. 


THE  IDEALISTS 

What  need  be  said  concerning  the  presence  of  a  spir¬ 
itual  reality  in  the  recent  systems  of  philosophy  repre¬ 
sented  by  Bowne,  Royce,  Ward,  Richardson,  A'liotta, 
Howison,  etc.?  To  take  away  belief  in  a  spiritual 
agency  would  be  taking  the  heart  out  of  these  philos¬ 
ophies.  And  would  it  not  be  difficult  to  find  a  modern 
system  of  thought  in  which  psychical  reality  does  not 
loom  up,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  as  a  significant 
fact? 

Here  we  have  proposed  to  us  all  kinds  of  panpsych¬ 
isms,  pantheisms,  pancalisms,  etc.,  and  hence  all  the 
phenomenalistic  theories  of  matter.  A  psychic  quality 
in  all  Nature,  however,  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  com¬ 
plete  panpsychism.  These  theories  simply  represent  a 
psychical  principle  running  through  all  things.  Ever 
and  anon  we  meet  such  beliefs  which  are  looked  upon 

12  Perry,  Present  Philosophical  Tendencies,  p.  69. 

13  Ibid.,  p.  153. 


104 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


as  panpsychic.  In  them  there  is  usually  the  tendency 
to  interpret  body  as  phenomenal,  thus  involving  us  in  a 
epistemological  discussion  which  need  not  becloud  the 
issue.  Etymologically  speaking,  panpsychism  is  that 
theory  which  ascribes  a  psychical  nature  to  the  whole 
of  being,  and  should  be  equivalent  to  spiritualistic 
monism.  And  in  our  endeavor  to  show,  from  the 
standpoint  of  scientific  attitude,  that  there  is  a  psychi¬ 
cal  energy  in  all  Nature,  it  is  imperative  that  we  keep 
in  mind  that  this  is  not  our  ultimate  objective;  al¬ 
though  dealt  with  in  detail  it  is  but  a  sub-station  along 
the  way.  As  we  proceed  it  will  be  seen  that  we  are  ad¬ 
vocating  that  genuine  panpsychism  which  says  that  all 
reality  is  psychical  or  spiritual. 

THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  PSYCHICAL  REALITY 

The  criticism  may  possibly  be  made  here  that  the 
converging  lines  of  testimony  which  have  been  offered 
in  this  chapter  and  elsewhere  to*  show  the  presence  of 
a  psychical,  spiritual  reality,  have  to  do  primarily  with 
the  higher  forms  of  being  in  the  organic  world.  But  it 
is  the  belief  of  many  students  that  the  law  of  analogy 
can  be  brought  into  play  in  this  case,  and  what  is  true 
of  life  in  the  organic  world  will  hold  good  for  all 
forms  of  being;  and  as  the  so-called  physical  has  been 
found  to  be,  seemingly,  a  medium  through  which  the 
psychical  finds  expression,  it  is  reasonable  to  believe 
that  this  principle  prevails  in  all  Nature,  holding  good 
even  throughout  the  inorganic  world. 

The  attitude  represented  in  the  preceding  paragraph 
has  the  strong  backing  of  science.  The  law  of  con- 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  105 


tinuity  pertains  not  only  to  certain  types  but  reaches 
from  the  lowest  to  the  highest  forms  of  being,  and  no 
one  can  safely  attempt  to  annul  this  law  by  postulating 
a  line  of  demarcation  between  the  inorganic  and  the 
organic  worlds. 

Clifford  is  very  definite  in  his  support  of  this  atti¬ 
tude.  He  says  that  “as  we  go  back  along  the  line,  the 
complexity  of  the  organism  and  its  nerve-action  in¬ 
sensibly  diminishes;  and  for  the  first  part  of  our 
course  we  see  reason  to  think  that  the  complexity  of 
consciousness  insensibly  diminishes  also.  But  if  we 
make  a  jump,  say  to  the  tunicate  molluscs,  we  see  no 
reason  there  to  infer  the  existence  of  consciousness  at 
all.  Yet  not  only  is  it  impossible  to  point  out  a  place 
where  any  sudden  break  takes  place,  but  it  is  contrary 
to  all  the  natural  training  of  our  minds  to  suppose  a 
breach  of  continuity  so  great.  .  .  .  But  as  the  line  of 
ascent  is  unbroken,  and  must  end  at  last  in  inorganic 
matter,  we  have  no  choice  but  to  admit  that  every  mo¬ 
tion  of  matter  is  simultaneous  with  some  ejective  fact 
or  event  which  might  be  part  of  a  consciousness.”  14 

De  Tunzelmann  also  would  give  a  place  to  the  psychi¬ 
cal  element  not  only  in  animal  life  but  in  all  Nature  as 
well.  He  says  “there  is  no  way  of  evading  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  a  determining  cause  must  be  sought  for 
beyond  the  molecular  scheme.  There  is  one  and 
only  one  such  course  known  to  us — our  own  will  or 
mind;  and  the  fundamental  principles  of  scientific  in¬ 
vestigation  lead  us  therefore  to  seek  in  the  extension 
of  mind  for  the  determination  of  the  molecular  scheme, 
and  further,  of  the  whole  order  of  Nature.  We  find 

14  Clifford,  Lectures  and  Essays,  pp.  283-284. 


106 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


that  the  mental  scheme,  introduced  simply  as  a  work¬ 
ing  hypothesis,  proves  satisfactory  at  every  point 
where  the  molecular  scheme  is  found  to  be  insufficient, 
and  the  attempt  to  ignore  it  in  the  development  of  any 
scheme  attempting  to  account  for  the  order  of  Nature, 
will  invariably  be  found  to  necessitate  its  introduction 
in  some  disguised  and  unscientific  manner,  which  very 
commonly  takes  the  form  of  personifying  natural  law, 
one  of  the  worst  of  pseudo-scientific  absurdities.”  15 

Royce  very  earnestly  argues  against  setting  the 
lower  types  of  being  off  to  themselves  and  denying  to 
them  psychical  activities.  He  says  the  doctrine  of  evo¬ 
lution  helps  to  bridge  the  gulf  between  the  two  extremes 
in  Nature— -mind  and  matter.  “Between  what  seems 
to  us,  from  our  ordinary  social  point  of  view  the  high¬ 
est  of  accessible  mental  life,  and  what  we  take  to  be 
the  manifestations  of  lifeless  matter,  there  is,  in  the 
process  of  mental  evolution  apparently  no  breach  of 
continuity  anywhere.  ...  It  is  precisely  this  ap¬ 
parent  continuity  which  is  the  most  impressive  of  all 
the  inductions  that  the  study  of  evolution  has  lately 
forced  upon  the  attention  of  all  who  have  taken  Na¬ 
ture  at  all  seriously.” 16  “When  we  see  inorganic 
Nature  seemingly  dead,  there  is,  in  fact,  conscious  life 
just  as  surely  as  there  is  any  Being  present  in  Nature 
at  all.”  17 

The  same  elements  are  represented  in  minerals, 
plants,  and  animals;  they  are  simply  organized  differ¬ 
ently.  Minerals  get  their  subsistence  by  feeding  on 
materials  about  them  in  just  as  real  a  sense  as  the 

15  de  Tunzelmann,  p.  461. 

16  Royce,  The  World  and  the  Individual,  Vol.  I,  p.  210. 

17  Ibid.,  p.  240. 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  107 


highest  developed  forms  of  life,  only  the  method  is 
more  crude.  There  is  a  general  process  of  feeding 
going  all  the  time.  It  is  a  very  fundamental  fact  in 
agriculture  that  the  soil  gets  its  nourishment  from 
plants,  animals,  etc.  Plants  depend  for  nourishment 
on  the  air,  moisture,  and  soil.  Animals  in  turn  feed 
on  plants  and  other  animals.  Most  plants,  however, 
‘‘feed  at  a  lower  chemical  level  than  do  animals.”  “It 
has  been  recognized  that  the  beech-tree  feeds  and 
grows,  digests  and  breathes,  as  really  as  does  the  squir¬ 
rel  on  its  branches  :  that  in  regard  to  none  of  the  main- 
functions  (except  excretion,  which  plants  have  little 
of)  is  there  any  essential  difference.”  18 

In  science  illustrations  of  analogy  are  not  wanting 
which  show  that  the  same  deep  principles  which  pre¬ 
vail  in  the  organic  world  are  found  in  the  inorganic 
as  well.  We  see  this  analogy  in  the  fact  that  if  a 
block  of  any  one  of  the  thousand  minerals  known  to 
science,  quartz  for  instance,  were  broken  into  myriads 
of  pieces,  every  particle  would  be  found  to  be  a  perfect 
crystal,  just  the  same  as  the  original,  which  suggests 
a  similarity  to  the  fact  that  if  a  starfish  were  torn  into 
shreds,  every  piece  would  regenerate  itself  and  form  a 
starfish  again.  If  we  were  to  take  this  same  piece  of 
quartz  and  put  it  into  running  water  it  would  become 
sand-grains.  If  then  these  sand-grains  were  put  in 
the  proper  environment  where  they  would  have  access 
to  food,  they  would  regenerate  themselves  and  go  back 
to  crystal  forms. 

Science  discusses  this  whole  question  as  the  tendency 
of  all  things,  inorganic  as  well  as  organic,  to  adjust 

18  Thomson  and  Geddes,  Evolution,  p.  78. 


108 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


themselves  to  their  environment,  the  only  difference  be¬ 
tween  the  two  being  that  the  inorganic  is  slower  than 
the  organic  in  this  respect.  In  concluding  a  lecture  on 
evolution  in  general  and  life  in  particular  Kay  says 
“there  is  then  a  continuity  in  the  development  of  the 
earth,  and  the  inorganic  world  is  just  as  wonderful  as 
the  organic.”  If  scientific  thinkers  of  this  attitude  are 
correct,  and  we  have  no  reasons  to  disbelieve  their 
findings,  then  even  in  the  inorganic  world  there  is  met 
teleology,  and  immanent  teleology  is  difficult  to  con¬ 
ceive  apart  from  a  psychical  activity. 

So  it  is  evident  that  in  science  and  philosophy  there 
is  strong  opposition  to  the  idea  of  separating  the  in¬ 
organic  from  the  organic  world;  it  is  just  like  trying 
to  divide  the  bud  from  the  blossom.  If  evolution  is 
right  in  teaching  that  higher  forms  come  from  the 
lower,  that  the  organic  has  evolved  from  the  inorganic 
level,  then  the  inorganic  world  has  always  held  wrapped 
up  within  itself  the  potentialities  of  higher  developed 
life,  and  even  to-day  must  have  in  itself  possibilities 
yet  to  be  unfolded.  The  only  difference  between  the 
two  is  that  in  the  organic  we  have  a  higher  develop¬ 
ment  or  organization  of  energy  units.  Thus  it  seems 
reasonable  to  believe  that  what  holds  good  for  the 
organic  world  holds  good  for  every  form  of  being;  if 
psychical  energy  is  dominant  in  one  type ,  it  is  domi¬ 
nant  in  all . 


PSYCHICAL  ENERGY  AS  THE  ONLY  REALITY 

The  dualist,  however,  might  suggest  the  possibility 
of  spirit  being  the  directing  element  and  matter  the 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  109 


thing  directed,  without  making  spirit  the  only  reality. 
But  the  materialist  and  dualist,  in  clinging  to  matter 
as  a  final  reality  will  have  a  difficult  task  in  endeavor¬ 
ing  to  harmonize  their  philosophy  with  the  modern  be¬ 
lief  in  the  energy  concept,  for  the  conception  of  mat¬ 
ter  as  a  static,  fixed  substance  will  not  stand  in  the 
face  of  progress  made  by  science  in  recent  times. 
Modern  thought  points  the  other  way.  “It  is  the  dis¬ 
covery  of  living  processes  of  incessant  adjustment  and 
adaptation,  rather  than  of  sequences  purely  mathema¬ 
tical  and  mechanical,  which  has  in  recent  years  been 
the  source  of  philosophical  reaction.”  19  This  attitude 
is  endorsed  by  Woodbridge,  who  says  “this  is  the  one 
valuable  and  significant  thing  in  modern  philos¬ 
ophy.”  20 

So  the  question  arises  at  this  time  as  to  what  that 
something  is,  which  has  been  designated  as  physical  or 
material  and  which  seems  to  be  the  means  by  which 
the  psychical  achieves  its  ends.  As  the  psychical  is 
understood  to  unfold  itself  in  every  part  of  the  organ¬ 
ism,  it  makes  us  wonder  whether  the  old  hypothesis  of 
mind  and  matter  is  not  wrong  after  all.  The  relation¬ 
ship  between  mind  and  body  seems  too  smooth,  too 
perfect  for  two  different  entities  to  be  rubbing  up 
against  each  other.  Facts  point  to  the  existence  of  a 
single  substance. 

In  Part  I  we  showed  the  strong  monistic  tendency 
of  scientific  thought,  culminating  in  the  belief  that 
reality  is  energy.  Science  to-day  is  inclined  toward  a 
monism,  a  monism  of  energy.  It  has  been  found  that 

19  Adams,  Idealism  and  the  Modern  Age,  p.  98. 

20  Woodbridge,  Journal  of  Philosophy,  Psychology  and  Scien¬ 
tific  Methods,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  378. 


110 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


in  the  last  analysis  of  things  we  come  face  to  face  with 
the  electrons  which  are  but  charges  of  electricity,  a 
form  of  energy.  No  such  distinction  is  made  as  psych¬ 
ical  and  physical  energy.  All  the  electrons  are  the 
same,  no  matter  where  found.  The  atoms  differ  only 
in  the  groupings  of  electrons  constituting  them. 

If  monism  is  correct,  then,  it  would  hardly  be  pos¬ 
sible  for  everything  to  be  material  because  modern 
thought,  as  has  been  shown  in  detail,  believes  in  the 
presence  and  priority  of  psychical  activities,  of  spirit. 
On  the  basis  of  a  monism  of  energy  it  is  perhaps  rea¬ 
sonable  to  doubt  whether  there  is  such  a  thing  as  physi¬ 
cal  energy.  In  other  words,  we  come  to  that  place 
where  it  is  fair  to  question  the  existence  of  genuine 
matter.  But  on  the  other  hand  it  would  seem  incon¬ 
sistent  to  question  the  reality  of  psychical  energy;  we 
have  found  facts  pointing  to  a  psychical  energy  at 
work  and  should  feel  kindly  disposed  toward  a  belief 
in  its  reality.  We  are  therefore  inclined  to  believe 
with  Huxley  that  “Matter  and  Force  are,  as  far  as 
we  know,  mere  names  for  certain  forms  of  conscious¬ 
ness.”  “We  find  ourselves  forced  to  interpret  Nature 
.  .  .  as  an  orderly  realm  of  genuine  conscious  life,  one 
of  whose  products,  expressions  and  examples  we  find 
in  the  mind  of  man.”  21  This  is  equivalent  to  saying 
that  the  same  thing  which  has  been  called  body  or 
matter  and  through  which  mind  seems  to  find  expres¬ 
sion  is  also  of  a  psychical  nature.  These  things  being 
true,  it  is  in  a  spiritualistic  monism  then  that  Nature 
seemingly  finds  its  correct  classification. 

21  Royce,  World  and  Individual,  p.  242. 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  111 


ORGANIZED  PSYCHICAL  ENERGY  AS  A  THEORY 

OF  REALITY 

Facts  indicate  that  Leibnitz  was  working  on  the 
right  principle.  He  resolves  everything  into  monads, 
centers  of  psychical,  spiritual  force.  In  the  very  low¬ 
est  types  of  being  we  find  a  group  of  monads  cluster¬ 
ing  about  a  governing  or  central  monad.  This  group 
with  other  groups  gather  about  a  still  more  important 
central  soul;  and  so  on  until  we  come  to  the  highest 
type  of  being  as  found  in  mind  and  represented  by 
consciousness.  The  monads  surrounding  the  central 
monads  or  souls  are  continually  changing  but  the  gov¬ 
erning  souls  never  change.  Here  we  have  a  world 
alive  with  thought,  ranging  from  the  lowest,  confused 
perception,  up  to  mind  as  consciousness. 

The  further  we  go  into  the  study  of  reality  the 
more  it  seems  that  it  is  a  program  something 
like  that  of  Leibnitz  which  will  stand  the  test  of 
time.  Science  finds  that  there  are  central  cells 
something  like  those  to  which  Leibnitz  refers.  “There 
is  a  popular  fallacy  in  lay  minds  that  the  whole 
human  body  is  replaced  by  fresh  material  in  a  period 
which  by  some  whimsical  fancy  has  been  fixed  at  seven 
years.  As  a  matter  of  fact  some  cells  are  formed, 
pass  to  maturity,  and  perish  almost  daily,  while  others 
last  as  long  as  the  animal  itself.  .  .  .  These  master 
cells  are  to  be  found  in  the  brain  and  other  parts  of  the 
central  nervous  system,  in  arterial  walls,  and  in  mech¬ 
anisms  which  control  the  heart/’ 22  Starbuck  says  “the 
parts  in  the  finer  anatomy  which  are  especially  essen- 

22  Moore,  The  Origin  and  Nature  of  Life,  p.  45. 


112 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


tial  to  mental  activity  are  the  cells  for  generating  and 
storing  nervous  energy,  and  a  rich  network  of  nerve 
fibers  with  fatty  wrappings  for  conducting  the  energy 
from  one  part  of  the  brain  to  another.”  23 

Hence  we  are  led  to  a  new  conception  of  the  human 
body,  seeing  it  as  an  intricate  organization  of  psychical 
energy,  in  which  can  be  found  many  minor  groupings 
or  systems  of  more  or  less  importance.  Probably  in 
the  lower  organisms  of  the  body  we  could  find  energy 
units  of  the  simplest  organization  gathering  about  the 
most  inferior  cells,  and  in  coming  up  through  the  more 
complex  systems  connected  with  the  more  important 
cells,  finally  find  the  whole  system  culminating  in  the 
cells  having  to  do  with  the  brain. 

This  is  not  unlike  Hughlings  Jackson’s  theory  of 
“levels”  or  Flechsig’s  “associated  centers.”  With 
Jackson  the  lowest  level  heads  up  in  the  spinal  cord, 
medulla  and  pons  and  has  to  do  with  the  simplest  ac¬ 
tivities  of  the  body.  The  second  level  represents  a 
higher  organization  of  relationships;  and  the  third, 
the  highest,  is  supreme  in  heading  up  the  entire  nervous 
system  and  represents  mind. 

We  have  shown  that  science  believes  that  the  same 
principle  of  psychical  activity  is  fundamental  to  all 
being,  animate  and  inanimate;  to  all  bodies,  organic 
and  inorganic.  It  seems  reasonable  then  to  accept  that 
system  which  sees  in  all  Nature  a  vast  organization  of 
psychical  units  of  energy,  which  amounts  to  saying 
that  energy  operates  as  a  spiritual  force.  According 
to  this  conception  we  meet  in  the  lowest  types  of  being 
the  most  inferior  organizations  of  energy  units,  the 
units  of  every  single  body  clustering  about  a  governing 

23  Starbuck,  The  Psychology  of  Religion,  pp.  149-150. 


THE  SPIRITUAL  INTERPRETATION  113 


nucleus  or  cell.  And  as  we  come  up  through  the  series 
we  meet  the  more  complex  groupings  of  energy  units 
until  finally  in  the  consciousness  of  mind  is  met  the 
highest  degree  of  organization  in  all  Nature. 

Having  come  thus  far,  it  would  seem  consistent  in 
this  hypothesis  to  take  another  step  and  suggest  a  great 
Mind  or  Spirit,  in  which  is  realized  absolute  conscious¬ 
ness,  dominating  the  world  of  spiritual  energy.  This 
being  accepted,  we  should  have  a  common  meeting 
ground  for  scientific  thought  and  those  religious  be¬ 
liefs  which  represent  the  deeper  intimations  of  human¬ 
ity,  even  though  science  should  see  it  as  an  over-belief 
and  theology  .should  interpret  it  as  a  fact  of  experience. 
Here  then  the  religious  devotee  would  be  led  to  speak 
in  terms  of  energetic  Spirit  instead  of  an  absentee  God, 
and  the  scientist  in  terms  of  spiritual  energy  rather 
than  materialism  and  mechanism. 

It  is  further  possible  in  this  program  of  evolving 
spiritual  energy  for  the  adherent  of  the  Christian  faith 
to  believe  it  was  at  that  place  where  in  the  process  of 
development  from  the  “dust  of  the  earth”  man  came 
into  consciousness,  that  the  great  Spirit  began  to  deal 
with  man  as  a  person  and  that  Biblical  literature  be¬ 
gins  its  history  of  the  human  race;  that  it  was  when 
man  stepped  forth  a  conscious  being  he  became  a 
living  soul,  made  in  the  image  of  God.  In  this  vast 
system  then  the  mind  of  man  stands  above  all  organi¬ 
zations  of  spiritual  forces,  crowning  the  network  of 
Nature’s  activities.  This  most  highly  organized  sys¬ 
tem  of  spiritual  energy  as  represented  in  human  con¬ 
sciousness  is  probably  the  only  organization  of  spirit 
which  knows  no  dissolution,  making  possible  for  man 
the  experience  of  immortality. 


¥ 


Part  III:  ENERGY  AS  AN 
ATTRACTIVE  FORCE 


Chapter  I 


THE  ATTRACTIVE  PRINCIPLE 

In  the  foregoing  Parts  of  this  work  the  purpose  has 
been  to  show  that  reality  is  energy  and  that  this  energy 
is  of  a  spiritual  nature.  Having  reached  that  position 
in  our  search  for  the  real  where  the  concept  of  energy 
seems  to  hold  a  place  of  supremacy  in  relation  to  other 
fundamental  concepts,  we  are  now  interested  in  an  in¬ 
quiry  concerning  the  relationship  between  units  of 
energy.  While  it  may  seem  that  our  objective  has  been 
reached  in  the  study  made  of  the  energy  concept  in  its 
qualitative  aspects,  concluding  that  energy  is  spiritual, 
this  inquiry  is  so  closely  related  to  our  problem,  that 
our  task  would  hardly  seem  completed  unless  we  tried 
to  meet  the  challenge  of  this  question— How  do  units 
of  energy  operate  in  relation  to  each  other? 

In  observing  the  activities  of  the  universe  we  are 
made  to  wonder  whether  the  evidences  of  a  dynamic 
energy  at  work  are  determined  by  a  principle  of  attrac¬ 
tion  or  propulsion.  The  question  coming  up  at  this 
time  shapes  itself  something  like  this:  In  the  whole 
realm  of  Nature’s  life  is  the  actuating  principle,  funda¬ 
mental  to  all  activity,  to  be  characterized  as  one  of 
“push”  or  “pull”  ? 

We  come  immediately  to  the  point  in  suggesting  that 

the  hypothesis  which  seems  to  harmonize  best  with 

117 


118 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


facts  is  that  which  says  that  spiritual  energy  or  reality 
works  in  an  attractive  way;  and  that  inherent  in  all 
being  is  the  principle  of  attraction  which  holds  to¬ 
gether  all  the  elements  entering  into  the  make-up  of 
Nature,  thus  being  responsible  for  the  balanced  or¬ 
ganization  of  the  world  of  reality.  While  it  has  been 
popular  to  look  upon  God  as  the  efficient  cause,  im¬ 
parting  force  to  his  created  objects,  in  addition  to  this 
it  is  easy  to  believe  that  the  attractive  element  of  his 
own  self  has  been  imparted  to  those  things  outside 
himself  and  which  attractive  element  operates  as  a  vital 
principle  in  all  life.  Aristotle  supports  this  in  his  phil¬ 
osophy,  teaching  that  this  attractive  principle  plays  a 
great  part  in  the  relationship  existing  between  the  Cre¬ 
ator  and  things  created.1 

Empedocles  taught  the  existence  of  an  attractive 
force  which  he  called  Love.  According  to  him  this 
principle  operates  not  only  in  man  but  in  all  the  world 
as  well,  being  an  integral  part  of  the  very  life  of  all 
things.  He  makes  this  responsible  for  holding  to¬ 
gether  the  many  forms  of  matter.  Over  against  Love 
he  places  Strife,  picturing  the  four  elements,  earth, 
air,  fire,  and  water  to  be  thoroughly  mingled  with 
Love,  Strife  being  on  the  outside.  As  Strife  enters 
and  begins  to  work  on  the  elements,  Love  moves  to¬ 
ward  the  center  of  the  sphere;  and  when  Strife  has 
done  its  utmost  and  Love  has  reached  the  very  center, 
then  Love  begins  to  expand  and  Strife  moves  outward. 
This  attractive  principle,  Love,  is  central  in  his  whole 
system  of  philosophy. 

Heracleitus  also  placed  the  principle  of  attraction 

1  Hicks,  Stoic  and  Epicurean ,  p.  19. 


THE  ATTRACTIVE  PRINCIPLE 


119 


deep  in  his  scheme  of  reality.  Offering  an  illustration 
of  Heracleitus’  attitude  in  trying  to  account  for  the 
eternal  change  according  to  law,  Ernst  Laas  “com¬ 
pares  it  to  the  actual  paths  of  our  planets,  which  move 
neither  in  circles  nor  in  exact  ellipses,  but,  under  the 
influence  of  the  attractive  forces  of  moons  and  of  other 
planets,  or  of  comets,  continually  change  both  their 
course  and  their  velocity,  and  yet  all  according  to 
law.”  2  We  find  that  Anaxagoras  and  Empedocles 
believed  that  even  plants  were  set  in  motion  by  desire. 
This  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  there  is  in  the  front 
an  attractive  element  continually  pulling,  and  to  which 
inherent  intelligence  responds. 

This  attitude  of  the  ancients  has  stood  the  test  of 
the  ages  and  rightly  so,  for  facts  do  point  either  to  an 
intelligent,  dynamic  something  in  the  future  “pulling” 
things  from  the  present,  or  an  intelligent  vital  princi¬ 
ple  in  the  past  “pushing”  things  into  the  present.  This 
must  be  so  or  Nature  is  the  victim  of  a  blind,  groping 
process,  and  we  have  elsewhere  disclaimed  relationship 
with  a  willingness  to  make  the  activities  of  life  depend 
upon  the  laws  of  a  dead  mechanism.  We  are  interested 
here  in  trying  to  learn  whether  it  is  the  “pull”  of  the 
future  or  the  “push”  of  the  past  which  figures  in  the 
onward  sweep  of  things. 

It  is  granted  that  the  past  holds  for  us  more  than 
memories.  From  its  experiences  myriads  of  rivulets 
come  gushing  into  the  stream  of  the  present  as  it  rushes 
on  to  the  future.  And  yet  no  normal  person  or  thing 
lives  in  the  past.  We  look  forward  not  backward. 
Bergson  believes  that  “leaning  and  bending  forward  is 

2  Patrick’s  Heracleitus,  p.  63. 


120 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


the  characteristic  attitude  of  the  conscious  being.”  3  A 
thousand  lessons  may  be  learned  from  yesterday  but 
their  value  is  realized  not  in  looking  back  but  ahead. 
The  seeming  urge  of  the  past  becomes  swallowed  up 
in  the  mighty  pull  of  the  future.  “Once  and  always 
desire  is  ahead  beckoning  on  from  instant  to  instant. 
It  is  as  a  voice  crying  out  forever  from  the  bosom  of 
the  flying  hours.  It  is  the  call  of  the  time  to  come.  It 
is  the  tug  from  before,  not  a  thrust  from  behind ;  it  is 
the  pull  of  the  future,  not  the  push  of  the  past”  4  which 
is  the  determinant  in  all  experiences.  It  makes  but 
little  difference  what  name  is  given  to  this  attractive, 
dynamic  force  with  which  all  Nature  seems  to  be  in¬ 
stinct.  It  goes  without  saying,  however,  that  there  is 
no  one  term  broad  enough  to  represent  in  a  perfectly 
satisfactory  way  the  vast  and  intricate  workings  of 
this  attractive  principle. 

It  is  not  sufficient  for  us  simply  to  show  that  there 
is  an  attractive  process  going  on  all  the  time.  We  must 
satisfy  ourselves  as  to  what  that  fundamental  some¬ 
thing  is  which  constitutes  a  common  basis  of  appeal 
among  all  agencies;  what  that  something  is  to  which  is 
attributed  responsibility  for  holding  together  all  Na¬ 
ture,  making  possible  its'  balanced  relationships.  In 
trying  to  give  this  “pull”  a  definite  setting,  a  satisfac¬ 
tory  interpretation  is  found  in  that  philosophy  which 
treats  all  being  as  organized  on  the  basis  of  that  prin¬ 
ciple  which  in  the  animal  world  finds  its  highest  ex¬ 
pression  in  what  is  known  as  love. 

3  Mind-Energy,  p.  g. 

4  Smith,  Monist,  Vol.  23,  1913,  Jan.,  p.  31. 


THE  ATTRACTIVE  PRINCIPLE 


121 


In  making  love  a  universal,  attractive  principle,  in¬ 
herent  in  all  being,  we  are  following  the  lead  of  Plato.5 
According  to  him  there  are  two  types  of  love — one 
that  is  high  and  noble,  rising  above  all  wantonness  or 
lust  and  inhabiting  the  “higher  nature  of  man” ;  the 
other  having  to  do  with  the  body  rather  than  the  soul 
and  having  in  it  the  possibility  of  being  vulgar  and 
base. 

Human  life  represents  the  finest  organization  of 
spiritual  energy  yet  developed,  and  in  man  is  to  be 
found  the  most  finished  and  refined  form  of  this  at¬ 
tractive  current  which  runs  through  all  life.  Conse¬ 
quently  to  man  belongs  the  most  delicate  experiences 
in  relation  to  this  great  principle,  love. 

In  Dante  is  seen  the  best  picture  ever  portrayed  of  a 
highly  organized  philosophy  of  love.  Here  is  revealed 
love's  richest  meaning.  Dante  shows  love  to  be  a 
powerfully  attractive  force,  making  it  to  be  the  funda¬ 
mental  principle  both  in  heaven  and  earth.  It  is  the 
great  abiding  fact  which  remains  amid  fleeting  changes. 
Perfection  cannot  be  where  love  is  not.  “The  lack  of 
love,  then,  is  the  disease  of  the  soul,  from  which  all 
life’s  worst  evils  flow.  6  .  .  .  Love  is  Creation’s  final 
law.”  7  It  contributes  only  to  the  best,  lifting  all  it 
inhabits  to  the  loftiest  heights. 

Perhaps  this  attractive  principle  could  be  called  de¬ 
sire,  since  love  and  desire  represent  practically  the 
same  field.  The  one  cannot  be  separated  from  the 
other.  The  things  loved  are  always  the  things  desired, 
and  vice  versa.  Again,  the  things  desired  are  chiefly 

5  Plato’s  Symposium,  passim. 

6  Carpenter,  Spiritual  Message  of  Dante,  p.  94. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  107. 


122 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


those  which  we  do  not  have.  So,  desiring  something 
signifies  a  want  of  something.  The  object  of  our  love 
may  be  in  our  possession  but  satisfaction  comes  only 
with  new  experiences.  Love  turns  away  from  the  past 
and  transcends  the  present.  Its  objective  always  lies 
in  the  future.  No  one  is  ever  completely  satisfied. 
There  is  always  something  ahead,  pulling  us  on  and 
on,  call  it  ideals,  call  it  what  we  please. 

It  seems  that  life’s  chief  desire  is  to  be.  There  is  a 
continuous  struggle  to  perpetuate  existence.  Putting 
it  negatively,  there  is  a  desire  not  to  die.  The  instinct 
of  self-preservation  is  identical  with  the  desire  to  be 
immortal,  characteristic  not  only  of  man,  but  of  lower 
forms  as  well.  The  latter,  not  reaching  as  high  degree 
of  organized  spirit  as  man,  whose  being  is  represented 
by  human  consciousness,  fail  to  come  into  a  realization 
of  their  ambition.  There  is  a  large  group,  however,  es¬ 
pecially  in  some  non-Christian  religions,  who  believe 
that  even  animals  do'  continue  their  identity  and  teach 
this  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  metempsychosis,  the  trans¬ 
migration  of  the  soul. 

The  instinct  to  perpetuate  life  is  responsible  for  the 
universal  love  for  children  and  is  also  the  reason  why 
the  weakest  will  dare  to  die  fighting  for  their  young. 
It  is  said  they  love  them,  which  is  true,  but  the  courage 
of  the  fight  fundamentally  hinges  on  the  desire  to 
perpetuate  life.  Thus  in  love  itself  is  to  be  found  the 
occasion  of  the  great  Spirit’s  creative  scheme. 

Continuing  further,  the  love  of  life,  the  desire  to 
perpetuate  existence,  seems  to  root  itself  in  the  re¬ 
productive  instinct,  this  being  the  instrument  through 
which  the  instinct  of  self-preservation  realizes  its  ends, 


THE  ATTRACTIVE  PRINCIPLE 


123 


finding  temporary  satisfaction  in  generation  and  birth, 
both  of  which  signify  eternity  and  immortality.  And 
it  is  with  the  reproductive  instinct  that  the  sex  impulse 
is  always  associated.  It  may  be  that  in  the  last  analysis 
the  two  are  not  only  inseparable  but  also  identical. 

Plato  was  unable  to  avoid  the  representation  of  a 
close  relationship  between  love  and  the  reproductive  or 
sex  instinct.  In  interpreting  Plato,  Jowett  says  there 
is  a  “mystery  of  love  not  only  in  nature,  but  in  man, 
extending  far  beyond  the  mere  immediate  relation  of 
the  sexes.  He  is  conscious  that  the  highest  and  noblest 
things  in  the  world  are  not  easily  severed  from  the 
sensual  desires  or  even  may  be  regarded  as  a  spiritual¬ 
ized  form  of  them.”  8  Love  then,  according  to  Plato, 
being  a  great  spirit,9  may  be  simply  a  highly  organized 
spiritual  form  of  sensual  desires. 

Instead  of  representing  here  two  types  of  love  as 
found  in  Plato — one  of  a  higher  nature  for  the  soul 
life;  the  other  of  a  lower  nature  for  the  bodily  life — 
facts  seem  more  consistently  organized  in  that  system 
which  makes  this  lower  type  of  love  to  be  the  sex  im¬ 
pulse.  In  this  program  love  and  the  sex  instinct  are 
made  to  be  one  and  the  same  fundamental  principle, 
love  being  the  sublimated  or  finished  product  and  the 
sex  or  reproductive  instinct  the  raw  material  from 
which  love  is  made.  This  seems  true  because  it  is  the 
same  principle  which  in  passion  runs  to  things  base  or 
in  love  finds  itself  organized  in  harmony  with  the  lofti¬ 
est  ideals. 

Since  “God  is  Love”  it  may  be  inferred  that  our 

8  Jowett’s  Introduction  to  Symposium,  p.  459* 

9  Plato’s  Symposium,  p.  495. 


124 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


system  makes  his  Love  to  be  a  supreme  culmination  of 
sexual  processes,  but  such  is  not  the  case.  Elsewhere 
in  this  work  God  has  been  shown  to  be  the  only  Abso¬ 
lute  Spirit  and  as  such  is  far  above,  figuratively  speak¬ 
ing,  and  altogether  free  from  the  entangling  experi¬ 
ences  peculiar  to  the  lower  forms  of  spiritual  energy. 

As  we  proceed  the  reader  is  warned  against  inter¬ 
preting  the  sex  impulse  in  a  common  and  popular  way 
which  usually  associates  this  instinct  with  such  terms 
as  lust,  vice,  etc.  The  idea  of  two  genders,  masculine 
and  feminine,  must  be  eliminated.  And  instead  of 
this  we  are  invited  to  consider  a  broad,  universal  prin¬ 
ciple  through  which  life  continually  reaches  for  im¬ 
mortality,  which  it  naturally  loves  and  toward  which  it 
is  naturally  drawn. 

We  have  represented  love  as  being  the  finished  form 
of  the  attractive  principle  operating  in  all  life.  Now 
we  shall  try  to  see  the  sex  instinct  not  simply  as  a 
fundamental  factor  in  life  but  as  the  raw  material  of 
that  attractive  principle  which  dominates  in  the  at¬ 
tractive  phase  of  energy’s  organized  scheme;  believing 
also  that  satisfaction  in  the  ceaseless  onsweep  of  Na¬ 
ture’s  activities  is  attained  only  as  the  restless  striving 
of  this  impulse  comes  into  the  realization  of  its  natu¬ 
ral  ambition,  which  is  to  perpetuate  existence. 

That  there  is  a  common,  universal  reproductive  cur¬ 
rent  running  through  the  general  stream  of  energy  or 
reality  and  that  all  being  is  organized  on  this  basis,  is 
finding  strong  confirmation  in  the  streams  of  thought 
running  in  from  many  quarters  to-day.  It  is  believed 
by  many  that  around  this  pivotal  factor  all  the  activi- 


THE  ATTRACTIVE  PRINCIPLE 


125 


ties  of  life  play.  In  the  ultimate  analysis  of  all  things 
.there  is  met  spiritual  energy  in  which  is  an  attractive 
sex  principle  which  characterizes  the  ultimate  substra¬ 
tum  from  which  everything  is  evolved,  and  which  prin¬ 
ciple  continues  to  inhere  in  all  being  in  every  stage  of 
evolution,  reaching  the  highest  degree  of  refinement  in 
love  as  experienced  by  man. 

In  presenting  the  sex  idea  in  this  connection  we  are 
offering  a  belief  which  not  only  harmonizes  with  much 
of  modern  thought  but  which  has  an  echo  in  ancient 
philosophy.  The  close  relationship  which  Plato  saw 
between  this  impulse  and  the  noblest  things  in  life  has 
already  been  suggested.  In  Bakewelbs  Source  Book  in 
Ancient  Philosophy,  Secondary  Sources,  we  read  that 
“Anaxagoras,  Democritus,  and  Empedocles  say  that 
(plants)  have  mind  and  intelligence.”  10  Empedocles, 
however,  did  not  stop  with  attributing  to  mind  and  in¬ 
telligence  responsibility  for  the  marvelous  responses 
obtained,  but  “was  of  the  opinion  that  sex  had  been 
mixed  with  them.” 

It  is  believed  by  many  thinkers  to-day  that  the  re¬ 
productive  instinct  inheres  in  all  stages  of  life.  The 
old  idea,  that  there  are  no  sexual  manifestations  until 
the  initial  stages  of  pubescent  growth,  must  be  aban¬ 
doned.  Facts  indicate  that  these  fundamental  tenden¬ 
cies  inhere  in  the  child  at  birth,  and  though  seemingly 
suppressed  for  a  time,  find  clear-cut  expression  before 
puberty  if  occasions  open  the  way  for  demonstra¬ 
tions. 

It  should  be  said  in  passing  that  as  the  boy  makes 
progress  in  the  period  of  adolescence  it  is  the  remark- 

10  P.  48.  ( Pseudo-Arist .  de  Plant — 815  a  15.) 


126 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


able  wisdom  of  Nature  that  with  his  feeling  of  ripen¬ 
ing  experiences  he  is  also  naturally  backward,  con¬ 
sciously  clumsy,  interested  in  things  rugged,  all  of 
which  tends  to  turn  him  away  from  too  close  attention 
to  his  possibilities  newly  awakened  and  newly  per¬ 
ceived. 

A  study  of  the  reproductive  factors  and  the  physio¬ 
logical  experiences  of  the  individual  clearly  demon¬ 
strates  the  fact  that  the  two  cannot  be  successfully  sep¬ 
arated  from  each  other.  This  is  clearly  seen  in  the 
growth  of  the  child's  body  when  approaching  puberty 
and  during  the  period  of  adolescence.  In  most  cases 
there  is  a  check  just  before  adolescence  followed  by 
rapid  growth  and  greatly  increased  strength.  There  is 
at  this  time  a  very  noticeable  growth  of  the  bones  and 
muscles.  The  heart  also  becomes  suddenly  larger. 
These  and  similar  facts  make  it  very  certain  that  the 
sex  part  of  life  is  tied  up  in  a  fundamental  way  to  the 
general  physiological  organism.  Freud  says  that  “he 
who  is  in  any  way  psychically  abnormal,  be  it  in  social 
or  ethical  conditions,  is  .  .  .  regularly  so  in  his  sex¬ 
ual  life."  11  It  may  be  that  the  Freudian  school  has 
overworked  the  sex  idea  but  it  must  be  admitted  by 
all  that  this  group  has  been  trying  to  organize  what  is 
proving  to  be  a  very  basic  fact. 

In  introducing  the  sex  idea  we  have  suggested  that 
our  attitude  refuses  to  consider  this  impulse  as  a  nega¬ 
tive  force  as  it  is  usually  interpreted,  running  into  li¬ 
centiousness.  Instead  of  this  we  have  represented  it  to 
be  a  universal,  fundamental  principle  which  in  its  most 
finished  form  is  love ;  also  claiming  that  it  is  the  means 

11  Freud,  Sexual  Theory,  p.  13. 


THE  ATTRACTIVE  PRINCIPLE 


127 


by  which  the  desire  for  immortality,  the  instinct  to 
perpetuate  existence  endeavors  to  reach  its  goal.  In¬ 
stead  of  the  two-gender  idea  we  would  go  deeper  and 
see  a  common  substratum  of  sexual  energy  from  which 
all  things  are  evolved.  It  is  called  a  sexual  energy  be¬ 
cause  its  chief  characteristic  is  the  reproductive  in¬ 
stinct. 

Hall  would  say  there  is  such  a  living,  vital  substance 
which  is  striving  always  for  self-expression.  It  is  not 
only  a  germinant  living  substance  but  is  a  storehouse 
of  experiences,  a  reservoir.  It  is  this  “marvelous  sub¬ 
stance  that  spins  out  filaments,  foams,  develops  gran¬ 
ules  or  films,  vibrates,  takes  on  or  puts  off  various 
forms  of  organization  in  its  ceaseless  Heracleitic  be¬ 
coming. ’’  12 

Into  this  common  sexual  energy  all  being  roots  it¬ 
self.  Sometimes  this  energy  expresses  itself  as  male, 
sometimes  as  female,  but  both  with  many  similar  char¬ 
acteristics  and  tendencies.  The  line  of  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  two  sexes  is  not  so  definite  as  it  seems.  The 
supposedly  differentiating  factors  disappear  as  we  set¬ 
tle  into  the  belief  that  the  “deep  constitutional  difference 
between  the  male  and  female  organism,  which  makes  of 
the  one  a  sperm-producer  and  of  the  other  an  egg- 
producer,  is  due  to  an  initial  difference  in  the  balance 
of  chemical  changes.”  13  It  is  found  that  “in  the  ani¬ 
mal  and  even  plant  series  closely  allied  series  have 
great  variability  of  sex  parts  and  functions,  the  same 
organs  sometimes  producing  alternately  eggs  and  sper¬ 
matozoa,  while  lower  down  we  find  many  creatures 

12  Hall,  Adolescence,  p.  412. 

13  Thomson  and  Geddes,  Evolution,  p.  90. 


128 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


that  may  reproduce  either  by  fission  or  sexually.’ ’ 14 

The  belief  that  beneath  the  two  sexes  there  is  a  fun¬ 
damental  energy  charged  through  and  through  with  a 
reproductive  or  sex  instinct,  derives  support  also  from 
the  current  belief  that  monosexuality  has  not  always 
prevailed.  Way  back  in  the  early  stages  of  evolution  the 
tendency  was  to  bisexuality.  Freud  says  “this  contains 
a  new  contradiction  to  the  popular  belief  which  as¬ 
sumes  that  a  human  being  is  either  man  or  woman. 
Science  shows  cases  in  which  the  sexual  characteristic 
appears  blurred  and  the  sexual  distinction  is  made  dif¬ 
ficult,  especially  on  an  anatomical  basis.  A  certain 
degree  of  anatomical  hermaphroditism  really  belongs 
to  the  normal.  In  no  normally  formed  male  or  female 
are  the  traces  of  the  apparatus  of  the  other  sex  lack¬ 
ing;  these  either  continue  functionless  as  rudimentary 
organs  or  they  are  transformed  for  the  purpose  of  as¬ 
suming  other  functions.”  15 

In  those  cases  in  which  the  sex  fails  to  declare  itself 
distinctly  and  the  sex  characteristics  approach  a  bal¬ 
ance,  genuine  hermaphroditism  results.  It  is  perhaps 
to  this  tendency  toward  balanced  sex  characteristics 
that  we  must  look  for  the  cause  of  some  women  look¬ 
ing  “mannish”  and  some  men  “womanish.”  This 
being  true,  the  terms  “sis”  and  “tomboy”  can  be  more 
than  mere  figures  of  speech. 

In  endeavoring  to  represent  the  reproductive  in¬ 
stinct  as  central  in  the  onward  reach  of  life  to  be  and 
thus  a  fundamental  element  in  that  current  of  energy 
which  responds  to  the  pull  of  the  future,  it  has  been 

14  Geigel,  quoted  from  Hall’s  Adolescence,  p.  414. 

15  Freud,  Sexual  Theory,  p.  7. 


THE  ATTRACTIVE  PRINCIPLE 


129 


necessary  to  confine  the  examination  of  the  hypothesis 
to  the  highest  forms  of  life,  believing  that  what  holds 
good  for  the  human  family  and  those  species  similar 
to  it  will  hold  good  for  the  lower  types  as  well.  Hall 
substantiates  this  in  saying  that  “we  may  interpret  the 
vast  number  of  ova  and  spermatozoa  to  be  a  survival 
in  man  of  the  enormous  fecundity  of  lower  species.”  16 
It  is  unwise  speculation  which  would  set  up  a  line  of 
demarcation  where  the  organic  world  ends  and  the  in¬ 
organic  begins.  The  idea  of  a  sudden  break  in  the 
series  in  the  descent  from  the  highest  types  of  being  to 
the  lowest  cannot  find  justification  except  as  tradition 
has  taught  the  misconception.17 

If  in  human  life  this  attractive  element  finds  its 
highest  point  of  development  in  love,  it  can  be  called 
by  the  same  name  in  all  animal  life.  And  so  to  every 
type  of  being  as  we  go  down  the  series,  a  measure  of 
this  attractive  love  can  be  ascribed,  proportionate  to 
the  standard  of  intelligence  experienced  by  that  type 
of  being.  If  the  descent  should  be  made  down  the  en¬ 
tire  scale  to  the  most  insignificant  iota  of  substance 
and  then  that  bit  of  substance  analyzed  we  should  come 
face  to  face  eventually  with  the  atom,  and  find  it  held 
together  by  the  attraction  of  its  negative  and  positive 
charges.  This  is  true  of  every  atom,  of  all  substance, 
of  all  being.  It  is  true  that  in  the  atom  is  met  repul¬ 
sion  of  like  charges  but  it  seems  that  the  attractive 
force  predominates  and  constitutes  the  primary  char¬ 
acteristic  of  the  atom. 

To  say  definitely  that  the  attraction  inherent  in  the 

10  Hall,  Adolescence,  p.  473. 

17  It  will  be  remembered  by  the  reader  that  in  Part  II  we 
showed  such  a  distinction  to  be  unjustifiable. 


130 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


atom  has  a  direct  relationship  with  the  sex  impulse 
would  be  reaching  beyond  known  facts,  but  it  is  easily 
possible  that  further  research  will  reveal  facts  suffi¬ 
cient  to  establish  the  belief  that  the  attractive  quality 
represented  in  the  sex  instinct  and  evident  in  all  being, 
receives  its  original  impetus  and  has  its  fundamental 
basis  in  the  attractive  element  characteristic  of  the  re¬ 
lationship  existing  between  the  negative  and  positive 
charges  which  make  up  the  atom.  Haeckel  seems  to 
invest  confidence  in  this  belief  when  saying  that  “the 
different  relation  of  the  various  elements  toward  each 
other,  which  chemistry  calls  'affinity’  is  one  of  the 
most  important  properties  of  ponderable  matter.  .  .  . 
Every  shade  of  inclination  from  complete  indifference 
to  the  fiercest  passion  is  exemplified  in  the  chemical 
relation  of  the  various  elements  toward  each  other, 
just  as  we  find  in  the  psychology  of  man,  and  especially 
in  the  life  of  the  sexes.  Goethe  in  his  classical  ro¬ 
mance,  Affinities ,  compared  the  relations  of  pairs  of 
lovers  with  the  phenomena  of  the  same  name  in  the 
formation  of  chemical  combinations.  The  irresistible 
passion  that  draws  Edward  to  the  sympathetic  Ottilia, 
or  Paris  to  Helen  ...  is  the  same  impetuous  move¬ 
ment  which  unites  two  atoms  of  hydrogen  to  one  atom 
of  oxygen  for  the  formation  of  a  molecule  of  water.”  18 

Having  made  energy  to  be  spiritual  it  is  reasonable 
to  believe  that  the  attractive  passion  which  character¬ 
izes  the  higher  forms  of  life  is  the  very  same  affinity 
which  is  found  asserting  itself  in  the  relationships  of 
the  lowest  forms  of  being.  All  these  things  lead  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  reproductive  or  sex  instinct  which 

18  Haeckel,  Riddle  of  the  Universe,  p.  224. 


THE  ATTRACTIVE  PRINCIPLE 


1ST 


manifests  itself  in  its  most  finished  form  as  love  is  a 
universal,  attractive  principle  peculiar  to  all  being,  and 
that  it  is  by  means  of  this  principle  that  the  balanced 
relationship  of  all  Nature’s  activities  is  maintained. 


Chapter  II 


ASCENDING  PROGRESS 

In  the  last  chapter  the  belief  was  championed  which 
says  that  reality,  operating  as  a  balanced  system  of 
spiritual  energy,  is  characterized  by  a  principle  of  at¬ 
traction  and  the  element  fundamental  in  this  program 
of  attraction  was  made  to  be  the  sex  or  reproductive 
instinct.  In  this  chapter  we  are  advocating  that  not 
only  are  things  constantly  attracted  to  each  other  but 
that  the  activities  of  the  whole  universe  constitute  a 
movement  of  ascending  progress ,  occasioned  by  the 
fact  that  the  great  Spirit,  in  whom  all  reality  culmi¬ 
nates,  constantly  draws  things  on  and  up  toward  him¬ 
self.  We  have  already  attempted  to  show  that  love 
and  desire  cause  things  to  move.  In  addition  to  that, 
it  is  suggested  here  that  God ,  being  the  object  of  love 
and  desire ,  causes  things  to  move  toward  himself . 

In  the  first  place  it  is  necessary  to  satisfy  ourselves 
with  the  idea  that  ascending  progress  does  character¬ 
ize  the  experiences  of  the  world.  Spaulding  says  that 
“direct  empirical  evidence  compels  us  to  admit  that 
there  is  a  newness,  a  creation,  an  ascent  in  situations  ”  1 
As  support  for  this  belief  we  fall  back  upon  the  history 
of  the  world  as  told  in  the  story  of  evolution.  Schiller 
has  well  stated  the  attitude  of  modern  thought:  “Man 
had  to  be  an  animal  before  he  could  be  a  spirit;  he  had 
to  crawl  in  the  dust  before  he  could,  like  Newton,  dare 

1  Spaulding,  The  New  Rationalism ,  p.  514.  (Italics  are  mine.) 

132 


ASCENDING  PROGRESS 


133 


the  flight  through  the  universe.  Without  the  body  no 
activity,  and  without  sense,  no  perception.” 

From  the  cave  of  primitive  man  to  the  mansion  is 
a  long  road  but  further  and  no  less  certain  is  the  road 
from  nebula  to'  man  himself ;  a  fact  which  no  one  has 
been  able  successfully  to  deny.  It  is  true  there  are 
many  steps  along  the  way  which  science  does  not  un¬ 
derstand  and  hence  cannot  explain.  For  instance,  no 
one  can  speak  ex-cathedra  saying  that  living  matter 
has  had  its  origin  in  non-living  and  yet  the  general  at¬ 
titude  of  evolutionary  science  resolves  itself  into  this 
belief.  It  seems  best  and  necessary  to  assume  “that 
spontaneous  generation  occurred  in  favorable  condi¬ 
tions  very  long  ago,”  2  making  this  of  all  the  theories 
of  the  origin  of  life  seem  to  be  the  most  probable. 

The  general  belief  of  science  is  that  “there  has  been 
a  more  or  less  complete  chain  of  beings  from  monad 
to  man.”  3  In  many  species  there  are  found  the  same 
principles  and  functions  represented,  such  as  in  the 
wing  of  the  bird,  the  leg  of  the  horse,  the  arm  of  the 
man,  etc.  In  these  is  found  detailed  hoinonology  “not 
only  as  regards  bones,  but  as  regards  muscles,  nerves, 
and  blood  vessels.”  4  “It  is  one  of  the  most  astound¬ 
ing  facts  of  modern  science  that  the  first  embryonic 
abodes  of  moss  and  fern  and  pine,  of  shark  and  crab 
and  coral  polyp,  of  lizard,  leopard,  monkey  and  man 
are  so  exactly  similar  that  the  highest  powers  of  mind 
and  microscope  fail  to  trace  the  smallest  distinction 
between  them.”  It  seems  that  into  the  period  from  the 
early  cell  to  the  body  of  the  child  has  been  concentrated 

2  Thomson  and  Geddes,  Evolution,  p.  71. 

3  Osborn,  Origin  and  Evolution  of  Life,  Preface,  p.  x. 

4  Thomson  and  Geddes,  Evolution,  p.  43. 


1 34 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


and  compressed  the  “progress  of  the  ages,”  reaching 
back  to  the  earliest  dawn  of  time.  In  this  short  period 
is  seen,  though  but  dimly,  the  stages  of  evolutionary 
progress. 

“All  animals  living,  or  that  ever  have  lived,  are 
united  together  by  blood  relationship  of  varying  near¬ 
ness  or  remoteness,  and  every  animal  now  in  existence 
has  a  pedigree  stretching  back,  not  merely  for  ten  or 
a  hundred  generations,  but  through  all  geologic  time 
since  life  first  commenced  on  the  earth.  The  study  of 
development  has  revealed  to  us  that  each  animal  bears 
the  mark  of  its  ancestry,  and  is  compelled  to  discover 
its  parentage  in  its  own  development;  the  phases 
through  which  an  animal  passes  in  its  progress  from 
the  egg  to  the  adult  are  no  accidental  freaks,  no  mere 
matters  of  developmental  convenience,  but  represent 
more  or  less  closely,  in  more  or  less  modified  manner, 
the  successive  stages  through  which  the  present  condi¬ 
tion  has  been  acquired.”  5 

Along  the  way  there  are  many  signs  of  changed 
courses  and  seeming  retrogression.  There  have  been 
many  species  which  in  certain  eras  of  time  experienced 
a  flourishing  existence  but  have  long  since  become  ex¬ 
tinct,  an  outstanding  example  of  which  is  the  trilobite 
of  the  Cambrian  period.  It  seems  to  be  a  general  rule 
that  the  greater  the  tendency  of  a  species  to  an  extreme 
physical  development,  far  out  of  proportion  to  the  in¬ 
tellectual,  the  greater  is  the  tendency  for  that  species 
to  pass  off  the  stage  of  life.  The  large  volume  of  re¬ 
cent  evidence  of  the  multitudinous  vicissitudes  of 

5  Marshall,  quoted  from  Drummond’s  Ascent  of  Man ,  pp.  72- 
73. 


ASCENDING  PROGRESS 


135 


struggling  life  in  the  many  eras  of  the  past  gives  pointed 
meaning  to  Burroughs’  statement  that  “Nature  always 
hits  the  mark  because  she  shoots  in  all  directions.” 

A's  the  species  moves  along  in  its  progress,  strong 
tendencies  which  have  served  their  purposes  are  al¬ 
lowed  to  disappear  as  the  species  adapts  itself  to  its 
new  relationships.  For  example,  there  are  seen  evi¬ 
dences  of  new  adaptations  in  certain  species  of  whales 
which  seemingly  have  no  chewing  apparatus  and  yet 
under  the  gum  are  well  developed  teeth.  Nor  do  they 
seem  to  have  hind  legs  and  “yet  many  show  vestiges, 
with  bones,  cartilages,  and  even  unmoving  muscles, 
which  are  buried  deep  below  the  surface  and  abso¬ 
lutely  useless.”  6  Then,  too,  while  most  snakes  show 
no  signs  of  legs  the  boa-constrictor  and  some  others 
closely  akin  to  it  have  hind  legs  though  so  small  that 
it  is  hard  to  detect  them.  In  the  light  of  these  facts 
the  story  of  the  serpent  at  one  time  being  a  walking 
creature  and  later  reduced  to  crawling  can  be  more 
than  myth. 

In  the  following  lines  Carruth  presents  briefly 
a  clear  picture  of  this  vast  program  of  develop¬ 
ment  : 


“A  fire  mist  and  a  planet, 

A  crystal  and  a  cell, 

A  jellyfish  and  a  Saurian 

And  caves  where  the  cave  men  dwell; 

Then  a  sense  of  law  and  beauty 

And  a  face  turned  from  the  clod; 

Some  call  it  evolution 

And  others  call  it  God.” 


6  Thomson  and  Geddes,  Evolution,  p.  48. 


136 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


Attention  is  called  in  passing  to  the  last  two  lines 
which  represent  the  fact  that  there  are  those  who  set 
evolution  and  God  over  against  each  other  as  though 
they  might  be  two  antithetical  factors.  Carruth  is 
right,  of  course,  in  suggesting  this  as  the  attitude  of 
some  persons  who  believe  that  it  is  impossible  to  be  an 
evolutionist  and  at  the  same  time  a  consistent  believer 
in  divine  creation.  We  maintain,  nevertheless,  that  a 
satisfactory  program  can  be  built  only  by  putting  the 
two  together.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  the  science 
departments  of  educational  institutions  are  teaching 
generally  the  lesson  of  the  constant  growth  of  things, 
call  it  evolution,  the  developmental  process,  call  it  what 
we  please;  and  rightly  so,  because  the  story  of  evolu¬ 
tion  has  been  read  in  the  manuscripts  of  rocks,  as 
relics  of  life  have  been  discovered  therein,  just  as 
clearly  and  definitely  as  ancient  writings  have  been  de¬ 
ciphered  from  slabs  of  stone.  And  again,  just  as  def¬ 
initely  are  we  convinced,  and  with  as  good  reasons, 
that  an  all-intelligence  is  responsible  for  the  whole 
situation,  which  leads  us  to  the  inevitable  conclusion 
that  evolution  is  the  divine  method  of  working,  and 
which  process  is  probably  best  represented  by  the  term 
creative  evolution. 

Much  of  the  controversy  over  evolution  would  be 
avoided  if  those  who  oppose  it  would  stop  to  differen¬ 
tiate  between  evolution  and  Darwinism,  instead  of 
using  the  twro  terms  as  synonyms.  Those  objecting  to 
evolution  really  seem  to  have  Darwinism  in  mind.  To 
be  clear,  evolution  means  nothing  more  than  orderly 
change,  in  the  way  of  growth  and  development,  and 
the  majority  of  students  who  believe  in  this  hypothesis 


ASCENDING  PROGRESS 


137 


as  the  most  likely  method  by  which  things  have  come 
to  their  present  status  are  unable  to  accept  in  full  the 
Darwinian  type  of  evolution  because  it  is  too  me¬ 
chanical  and  fails  to  rise  above  the  level  of  chance. 

Coming  back  to  our  immediate  problem,  the  present 
status  of  the  different  species  shows  not  only  the  marks 
of  the  many  stages  but  the  degree  of  progress  made  in 
evolution,  which  is  accentuated  if  we  keep  in  mind  the 
meager  beginning  which  characterized  being,  and  thus 
the  long  journey  which  life  has  made.  The  road  leads 
from  nebula  to  man  of  to-day  and  even  beyond.  For 
by  no  means  does  the  present  represent  the  final 
achievement  of  the  developmental  principle;  a  better 
world  is  continually  coming  into  being. 

“The  Geological  book — the  greatest  historical  docu¬ 
ment  of  all  the  ages — gives  us  as  one  of  its  truths  the 
fact  that  in  the  known  hundred  or  more  million-year 
record  of  life,  nothing  has  remained  in  constant  form; 
that  the  rule  has  been  not  only  continuous  change  but 
also  continuous  advance  of  the  highest  level.  Through 
vast  periods  man  has  himself  been  subject  to  changes 
like  those  that  have  been  expressed  in  other  living 
types;  and  the  habit  of  Nature  so  set  forth  seems  to 
indicate  that  with  the  earth  in  continuous  state  of 
modification  we  may  expect  life  and  man  to  keep  for 
the  future  a  rate  of  growth  not  less  rapid  than  that  of 
past  ages.  Assured  of  the  validity  of  these  principles, 
we  can  be  certain  that  as  a  race  and  as  individuals  we 
shall  be  almost  continuously  under  the  necessity  of 
meeting  adjustment  and  readjustment  to  new  condi¬ 
tions.”  7  So  in  the  light  of  all  these  facts  it  seems 

7  Merriam,  Science,  Nov.  19,  1920,  p.  475. 


138 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


indeed  true  that  “the  process  of  Becoming  is  a  .  .  . 
process  of  ascension.” 

The  idea  that  God,  the  great  Spirit,  is  pulling  things 
on  and  up  toward  himself  will  now  engage  our  atten¬ 
tion.  It  seems  certain  “there  is  a  power  that  'makes 
for’  values,  that  leads  to  them,  or  that  produces  them 
.  .  .  that  which  produces  or  leads  to  them  must  for 
that  very  reason ,  if  for  no  other,  itself  he  a  value.”  8 
It  must  be  not  only  a  value  but  a  supreme,  “producing” 
Value.  Strong  endorsement  of  this  belief  is  to  be 
found  in  Aristotle  who  would  say  that  final  causes 
must  have  their  subsistence  in  things  that  are  immova¬ 
ble.  There  must  be  a  First  Mover  which  is  an  entity, 
constituting  a  first  principle  upon  which  depends  the 
Heaven  and  Nature.  The  Godhead,  “itself  unmoved, 
(it)  is  the  cause  of  all  motion.”  9  If  there  were  no 
God  there  could  be  no  motion.  Those  things  moved 
by  the  Unmoved  Mover,  God,  in  turn  impart  motion 
to  other  things. 

How  does  God  move  the  world,  according  to  Aris¬ 
totle?  Hicks  would  answer  this  question  for  Aristotle 
by  saying  that  the  “deity  by  the  attraction  which  he 
exerts  upon  the  world  is  the  cause  of  motion,  the  ulti¬ 
mate  cause  of  all  the  ordered  regularity  and  life  of 
Nature.”  10  In  interpreting  Aristotle,  Windelband  is 
even  more  definite  when  saying  that  the  Godhead 
“calls  forth  all  the  motion  of  the  world  through  the 
desire  of  all  things  for  it,  and  through  the  endeavor 

8  Spaulding,  The  New  Rationalism,  p.  514. 

®  Metaphysics,  1118,  1012,  p.  31.  (Quoted  from  Windelband’s 
History  of  Ancient  Philosophy,  p.  267. 

10  Stoic  and  Epicurean,  p.  19. 


ASCENDING  PROGRESS 


139 


of  all  things  to  actualize  the  Form  that  is  eternally 
realized  in  the  Godhead.”  11  In  Aristotle’s  own  words, 
rather  than  in  those  of  his  interpreters,  we  have  the 
most  specific  confirmation  of  our  philosophical  pro¬ 
gram  :  “That  which  first  imports  motion  does  so  as  a 
thing  that  is  loved.”  12  As  the  object  of  love  and  desire 
God  then  “is  the  cause  of  all  motion.”  “Motion  oc¬ 
curs  because  matter  feels  the  impulse  to  form  itself 
like  God.”  13 

Much  later  we  find  Malebranche  advocating  this 
same  idea  in  saying  that  “there  is  implanted  in  every 
creature  a  direction  toward  the  Creator.  God  is  not 
only  the  unlimited  being,  he  is  also  the  highest  good, 
the  final  end  of  all  striving.”  14  This  theory  which 
we  are  here  recommending  is  especially  significant  be¬ 
cause  the  great  Spirit,  drawing  all  things  to  himself  by 
means  of  love  and  desire,  offers  a  genuine  explanation 
of  the  moving  cause. 

Our  system  maintains  that  in  all  things  there  is  an 
element  of  intelligence  proportionate  to  the  degree  of 
organization  experienced  by  the  energy  units  consti¬ 
tuting  things.  The  principle  enjoying  this  intelligent 
experience  is  made  to  be  the  striving  for  immortality , 
the  instinct  to  be,  which  we  have  represented  as  run¬ 
ning  in  the  same  general  stream  as  the  reproductive 
instinct,  the  latter  being  a  means  by  which  the  impulse 
to  be  achieves  its  ends. 

11  Metaphysics,  XI,  1072  a,  26.  Quoted  from  Windelband’s 
History  of  Ancient  Philosophy,  p.  267. 

12  Metaphysics  of  Aristotle,  Book  XI,  Ch.  XII,  p.  330.  (Trans, 
by  M’Mahon.) 

13  Cushman,  A  Beginner's  History  of  Philosophy,  p.  193. 

14  Quoted  from  Falckenberg’s  History  of  Modern  Philosophy , 

p.  147. 


140 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


The  desire  to  perpetuate  existence,  as  seen  in  all 
things,  is  an  element  of  likeness  to  God  himself.  As 
we  move  up  the  scale  of  being,  in  the  vast  system  of 
spiritual  energy,  and  see  reality  organized  more  and 
more  into  active  consciousness,  we  have  a  situation 
which  more  and  more  approximates  likeness  to  God; 
and  when  reaching  the  organization  of  human  con¬ 
sciousness  we  have  a  situation  which  enjoys  experi¬ 
ences  identical  with  God.  We  are  thus  led  to  feel  that 

“Truth  is  within  ourselves;  it  takes  no  rise 
From  outward  things,  what’er  you  may  believe 
There  is  an  inmost  center  in  us  all 
When  truth  abides  in  fulness;  and  around, 

Wall  upon  wall,  the  gross  flesh  hems  it  in 
This  perfect,  clear  perfection,  which  is  truth 

.  And  to  know 

Rather  consists  in  opening  out  a  way 
Whence  the  imprisoned  splendor  may  escape 
Than  in  effecting  entry  for  a  light 
Supposed  to  be  without.”  15 

James  has  said  that  “God  in  religious  experience  is 
not  the  whole  of  things  but  the  ideal  tendency  in 
things.”  God,  however,  is  more  than  a  tendency,  and 
the  Divine  immanence  reaches  below  man.  This  in¬ 
telligent,  vitalistic  principle  which  we  have  met,  and  to 
which  Browning  refers,  is  God  in  us,  a  God-element  in 
the  world.  When  we  see  the  bird,  the  flower,  the  tree, 
as  well  as  the  baby’s  smile,  we  feel  sure  that  a  God- 
principle  is  there.  Of  this  truth  we  can  be  as  sure  as  of 
any  facts  which  are  made  certain  to  us  by  sense  knowl¬ 
edge.  The  response  of  this  inner  intelligence  to  the 


15  Browning’s  Paracelsus. 


ASCENDING  PROGRESS 


141 


pull  of  God  is  what  we  mean  by  immanent  teleology. 
Thus  it  is  by  the  investment  of  a  part  of  himself  in  all 
things,  and  his  very  self  in  man,  that  the  great  Spirit 
takes  hold  of  the  world  and  draws  it  to  himself. 

Belief  in  the  indwelling  Spirit  not  only  is  in  har¬ 
mony  with  philosophy  and  unobjectionable  to  science 
but  has  Biblical  support  as  well.  In  theology,  however, 
it  is  referred  to  as  the  omnipresence  of  God.  Some 
teach  this  truth  under  the  caption  of  the  immediacy  of 
God.  This  fact  is  clearly  in  the  mind  of  the  Psalmist 
when  he  says : 

“Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit?  or  whither 
shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence?  If  I  ascend  up  into 
heaven  thou  art  there;  if  I  make  my  bed  in  hell,  be¬ 
hold,  thou  art  there.  If  I  take  the  wings  of  the 
morning,  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea; 
even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me,  and  thy  right  hand 
shall  hold  me.  If  I  say,  Surely  the  darkness  shall 
cover  me,  even  the  night  shall  be  light  about  me. 
Yea,  the  darkness  hideth  not  from  thee;  but 
the  night  shineth  as  the  day ;  the  darkness  and  the  light 
are  both  alike  to  thee.”  16 

The  apostle  Paul  adds  his  endorsement  to  this  belief 
in  his  address  to  the  Epicurean  and  Stoic  philosophers : 
“For  in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being;  as 
certain  also  of  your  poets  have  said,  For  we  are  also 
his  offspring.”  17 

What  other  than  this  could  be  our  attitude  when  all 
Nature  seems  to  be  instinct  with  such  a  marvelous  in¬ 
telligence  and  beauty  ?  Curtis  seems  to  go  a  step  f ur- 

16  Psalm  139:7-12. 

17  Acts  1 7 :  28. 


142 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


ther  and  suggests  that  what  he  needs  as  a  substitute  for 
deism  is  “a  universe  entirely  and  constantly  dynamic 
of  God,  a  universe  which  is  nothing  other  than  God  in 
cosmic  action.”  18  Curtis  would  not  want  to  be  in¬ 
terpreted  literally  here.  He  hardly  means  to  represent 
more  than  the  reality  of  a  divine  immanence.  God  is 
not  everything  and  everything  is  not  God,  as  pantheism 
would  teach.  Instead  of  this  we  look  upon  the  great 
Spirit  as  an  all-intelligence,  a  Supreme  Person,  trans¬ 
cending  in  every  respect  all  other  forms  of  reality. 
These  things  being  true,  it  is  not  strange  that  in  the 
world  of  organized  spirit  all  things  seem  to  move  to¬ 
ward  God. 

Man  being  the  “offspring”  of  God,  an  impartation 
from  his  own  self,  has  had  an  existence  in  the  great 
Spirit.  Plato  believed  this  to  be  true,  because  when  we 
see  a  thing  of  real  truth  or  beauty  we  immediately  rec¬ 
ognize  it.  It  is  natural  to  the  thought  of  the  mind. 
Hence  such  things  are  in  the  mind  already  and  must 
have  been  known  in  a  former  state.  This  is  what 
Plato  means  by  the  preexistence  of  the  soul,  and  he  is 
probably  right  in  teaching  this  belief.  It  was  not  an 
existence  identical  with  that  experienced  in  time  be¬ 
cause  we  must  allow  for  growth,  but  that  type  of  exis¬ 
tence  simply  which  makes  it  possible  to  say  we  have 
come  from  the  great  Spirit,  and  thus  instinctively  try 
to  get  back,  just  as  a  child  who  has  been  away  from 
home  longs  to  return. 

It  does  seem  that 

18  Curtis,  The  Christian  Faith,  p.  478. 


ASCENDING  PROGRESS 


143 


“Our  birth  is  but  a  sleep  and  a  forgetting, 

The  soul  that  rises  in  us,  our  life’s  star, 

Has  had  elsewhere  its  setting, 

And  cometh  from  afar; 

Not  in  entire  forgetfulness, 

And  not  in  utter  nakedness, 

But  trailing  clouds  of  glory  do  we  come 
From  God  who  is  our  home.”  19 

It  is  very  natural  then  that  in  man  there  should  be 
the  desire  not  only  to  be  but  also  the  desire  to  become. 
It  has  been  said  that  “to  get  good  is  animal,  to  do  good 
is  human,  to  be  good  -is  divine.”  Man  possesses  all 
three  characteristics  and  yet  is  the  only  being  in  which 
there  is  a  spark  of  genuine  likeness  to  God.  The  great 
Spirit  is  represented  in  other  things  but  his  very  self 
dwells  only  in  man.  Only  to  the  human  being  belongs 
human  consciousness  and  this  is  Godlike.  Thus  we  try 
to  see  God  in  man’s  experiences,  for  “God’s  life  is  like 
that  of  which  we  catch  a  transient  glimpse  when  our 
life  is  at  its  best.”  In  other  words,  we  judge  God  “by 
what  is  divinest  in  ourselves.” 

Thus  it  is  man  of  all  things  who  is  pulled  into  closest 
fellowship  with  God.  It  is  in  those  mystic  experiences 
when  one’s  soul  flows  out  into  oneness  with  the  great 
Spirit  that  the  clearest  visions  of  truth  come.  It  was 
probably  to  the  consummation  of  this  process  that 
John  referred  when  saying,  “We  shall  be  like  him;  for 
we  shall  see  him  as  he  is.”  20  It  is  true  there  are  very 
intelligent  creatures  other  than  man  and  they  may  feel 
keenly  the  pull  to  a  higher  development,  but  when  it 

19  Wordsworth,  Ode  on  Intimations  of  Immortality. 

20  i  John  3 :  2. 


14,4< 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


comes  to  teaching  them  the  deeper  facts  of  life,  having 
to  do  for  instance,  with  business  or  faith  and  into 
which  enter  the  faculty  of  reason  and  genuinely  active 
consciousness,  they  must  be  ruled  out  of  the  category 
of  beings  which  can  enjoy  the  higher  range  of  experi¬ 
ences. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  man  only  is  spoken  of  as 
being  religious.  And  this  tendency  is  so  deeply  rooted 
that  religion  seems  to  be  an  instinct  or  a  composite  of 
instincts.  An  instinct  to  what?  An  instinct  to  wor¬ 
ship.  What  is  worship  stripped  of  all  appendages  ?  It 
is  primarily  an  endeavor  to  become ,  to  become  like  the 
object  worshiped;  a  striving  to  come  into  its  fullness; 
a  moving  toward  God.  Becoming  like  God  is  the  high¬ 
est  ambition  of  the  most  enthusiastic  religionist.  All 
things  strive  to  be;  man  strives  to  be  and  to  become. 
Thus  the  possibility  of  being  religious,  consciously 
moving  toward  God ,  differentiates  man  from  other 
things.  As  all  things  move  on  and  up,  man  is  dissatis¬ 
fied  unless  conscious  of  this  experience.  This  striving 
to  be,  then,  on  the  part  of  all  being,  to  be  and  to  become 
on  the  part  of  the  human  being,  is  but  the  response  to 
the  pull  of  the  great  Spirit  upward.  It  was  no  doubt 
to  this  drawing  power  that  Jesus  had  reference  when 
saying,  “And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will 
draw  all  men  unto  me.”  21 

There  is  then  characteristic  of  all  Nature  a  great 
movement  of  ascending  progress ;  the  ultimate  objec¬ 
tive  of  which  is  God.  The  starting  point  must  be 
placed  in  the  dim,  nebulous  stages  of  the  mighty  past 

21 1  John  12 :  32. 


ASCENDING  PROGRESS 


145 


and  the  journey  leads,  as  in  the  case  of  man,  even  to 
God  himself.  The  mighty  strivings  in  all  life,  from 
the  least  iota  of  being  to  the  highest  developed,  are  but 
the  struggling  desires  of  spiritual  things  to  answer  the 
call  of  the  great  Spirit  as  God  continually  operates  in 
his  marvelous  attractive  scheme. 

Very  often  is  it  necessary  to  pass  by  the  scientist, 
the  philosopher,  the  theologian,  when  seeking  the  keen¬ 
est  insight  into  truth  as  well  as  its  best  expression,  and 
appeal  to  the  poet.  The  fundamental  idea  running 
through  the  facts  which  we  have  been  endeavoring  to 
set  forth  in  this  chapter  is  well  expressed  in  the  “Ten- 
nysonian  quatrain”  which  pictures  to  us 

“That  God,  which  ever  lives  and  loves, 

One  God,  one  law,  one  element, 

And  one  far-off  divine  event 
To  which  the  whole  creation  moves.”  22 

22  For  a  similar  interpretation,  see  Smith’s  Article  in  Monist , 
referred  to  in  preceding  chapter. 


Chapter  III 


DISORGANIZED  SPIRITUAL  ENERGY 

The  reader  is  perhaps  thinking  that  our  position, 
which  represents  the  great  Spirit  as  drawing  all  things 
to  himself,  will  be  hard  to  maintain,  in  the  face  of  the 
fact  that  there  are  many  things  in  the  world  which  are 
not  moving  toward  God,  many  things  in  which  there 
seems  to  be  an  absolute  absence  of  good.  It  cannot 
be  denied  that  there  are  many  forces  operating  just 
as  though  there  were  no  such  God  of  infinite  greatness. 
These  vicious  forces  have  to  do  not  only  with  the  world 
of  humanity  but  reach  into  the  realm  of  the  lowest 
forms  of  being. 

The  situation  naturally  asks  for  some  reasonable 
explanation,  and  as  an  over-belief  it  is  here  suggested 
that  the  vast  system  of  spiritual  energy  or  reality  has 
become  disorganized.  This  disorganization  is  met  in 
Nature’s  wastes,  cyclones,  volcanoes,  earthquakes,  para- 
sites,  diseases  in  plant  and  animal  life,  and  when  con¬ 
fronted  in  the  highest  world  of  reality,  human  con¬ 
sciousness,  it  is  called  evil.  It  is  the  same  confusion 
that  is  seen  in  all  realms  of  being  but  is  called  by  dif¬ 
ferent  names  and  attributed  to  different  causes.  There 
is  no  objection,  however,  to  calling  disorganized  forms 
of  spiritual  reality  evil  wherever  met  (and  we  have 
interpreted  this  as  a  spiritualistic  universe),  even  out¬ 
side  the  pale  of  human  experiences.  It  seems  that  Ter- 

tullian  was  reaching  after  a  basal  fact  when  saying 

146 


DISORGANIZED  SPIRITUAL  ENERGY  147 

% 

that  “evil  spirits  are  the  sources  of  disease  and  dis¬ 
aster.”  1 

That  there  is  something  wrong  in  the  nature  of  man 
and  things  seems  very  certain.  And  if  there  is  a  dis¬ 
organization  of  spiritual  forces,  and  evil  is  present  in 
the  world  there  must  be  a  cause.  It  is  an  almost  uni¬ 
versal  belief,  however,  that  a  complete  Intelligence  is 
responsible  for  the  world  of  being.  And  if  so,  it 
would  be  inconsistent  to  attribute  to  this  Agency  an 
incomplete,  imperfect  piece  of  workmanship.  This 
being  so,  the  world  must  have  experienced  an  incep¬ 
tion  characterized  by  perfect  and  complete  experiences. 
Something  then  must  have  happened  to  disturb  the 
harmony  introduced  by  the  great  creative  Intelli¬ 
gence. 

Because  we  seem  to  be  employing  a  theological 
terminology  the  reader  must  not  feel  that  the  energy 
concept  has  been  forsaken.  We  would  stress  the  fact 
that  there  is  but  one  reality  for  all  fields  of  thought. 
Even  though  not  talking  here  so  much  in  terms  of  sci¬ 
ence  and  philosophy  we  are  dealing  with  the  same 
reality — spiritual  energy.  And  in  postulating  a  Cre¬ 
ator  no  blind  leap  has  been  made  into  the  dark,  for  this 
creative  Intelligence  is  but  the  great  Spirit  in  which, 
in  Part  II,  we  found  all  reality  culminating. 

Again,  this  program  does  not  necessarily  call  for  a 
special  creation,  but  rather  sees  a  world  emanating 
from  the  Creator’s  own  self  and  undergoing  a  Spen¬ 
cerian  total  dissolution,  followed  by  a  creative  evolu- 

1  Hasting’ s  Encyclopedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics,  Article  on 
Good  and  Evil  Spirits. 


148 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


tion,  in  which  latter  process  the  world  seems  to  be  at 
the  present  time. 

The  attention  of  the  reader  is  also  carefully  called 
to  the  fact  that  there  is  not  represented  here  the  atti¬ 
tude  which  would  say  that  a  completely  perfect  world’s 
program  was  interrupted;  that  the  world  was  further 
advanced  and  better  at  one  time  than  now,  for  this 
would  not  be  true.  Modern  thought  is  strongly  en¬ 
trenched  in  the  belief  that  in  the  process  of  evolution  a 
better  world  is  coming  into  existence  every  day.  What 
we  mean  to  say  is  that  a  perfect  harmony  prevailed  at 
one  time  whose  rhythm  was  disturbed  in  some  way. 
According  to  our  view,  trying  to  find  out  what  inter¬ 
fered  with  the  harmony  characterizing  the  entire  world 
of  being  would  be  identical  with  seeking  a  solution  of 
the  problem  of  the  origin  of  evil.  In  other  words, 
whatever  was  responsible  for  evil  in  human  life  is  that 
same  something  which  has  introduced  confusion  into 
the  whole  realm  of  organized  spiritual  being. 

In  considering  what  has  been  responsible  for  disturb¬ 
ing  the  regular  order  of  things,  it  would  be  interesting 
to  take  up  some  of  the  theories  having  to  do  with  the 
origin  of  evil.  But  this  would  necessitate  the  risk  of 
getting  lost,  roaming  in  the  fields  of  daemonology  and 
devil-lore.  Being  interested  primarily  in  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  a  positive  program  we  shall  suggest  only  one 
theory  for  the  origin  of  evil,  the  most  satisfactory  yet 
presented — the  theory  represented  in  Genesis  of  the 
Bible. 

As  the  Biblical  theory  is  here  recommended  there 
are  those  who  will  without  hesitation  declare  that  we 


DISORGANIZED  SPIRITUAL  ENERGY  149 


have  forsaken  our  spirit  of  scientific  research  and  have 
wrapped  ourselves  in  the  swaddling  clothes  of  primitive 
belief,  adding  that  our  only  purpose  is  to  save  a  dogma. 
This  objection  is  anticipated  not  because  we  feel 
guilty  of  the  charge  which  might  be  made  by  those 
who  disagree  with  the  theory  here  presented,  but  be¬ 
cause  this  is  the  type  of  criticism  which  is  commonly 
made  against  some  of  the  more  conservative  religious 
beliefs.  Such  off-hand  objection,  however,  makes  no 
contribution  to  the  general  fund  of  knowledge,  because 
observation  has  made  it  very  clear  that  the  interest  of 
some  in  preserving  dogma  is  more  than  matched  by  an 
interest  on  the  part  of  others  in  destroying  dogma,  and 
without  any  particular  purpose  in  mind. 

It  is  true,  when  approaching  any  problem  scientifi¬ 
cally,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  empiricist,  the  only 
thing  to  do  is  to  lay  aside  the  old  concepts,  even  the 
richest,  for  the  time  being;  but  some  students  are  de¬ 
termined  to  go  even  further  and  in  the  spirit  of  genu¬ 
ine  dogmatism  say  they  will  have  nothing  to  do  with 
any  fact  which  will  not  submit  itself  to  empirical 
analysis.  This  is  all  right  as  far  as  it  goes  but  we 
maintain  that  when  the  scientific  approach  fails,  our 
only  alternative  is  to  reach  back  for  the  old  concepts 
which  as  sources  of  explanation  have  satisfied  the  de¬ 
mands  of  reason,  even  though  we  cannot  unravel  their 
deepest  meaning.  This  is  much  better  than  to  assume 
the  worthlessness  of  concepts  because  methods  break 
down.  Those  who  adopt  this  negative  policy  will  have 
to  forego  the  hope  of  coming  to  satisfactory  conclu¬ 
sions  concerning  the  deepest  of  human  experiences,  be¬ 
cause  there  are  many  certainties  which  we  must  recog- 


150 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


nize  and  yet  cannot  analyze  scientifically;  many  ex¬ 
periences  whose  cause  and  content  we  cannot  describe, 
and  yet  are  very  unwilling  and  unable  to  disbelieve  in 
them  as  facts.  And  so,  when  an  interpretation  of  par¬ 
ticular  facts  constitutes  our  immediate  objective,  we 
contend  that  the  goal  is  more  significant  than  the  roads 
by  which  it  might  be  reached;  these  ultimate  truths 
must  take  precedence  over  the  methods  which  are  used 
in  an  attempted  analysis  of  these  facts.  We  should 
hesitate  to  throw  overboard  beliefs,  even  dogmas, 
which  have  shown  themselves  to  possess  all  the  quali¬ 
ties  of  genuine  facts,  especially  when  more  dependable 
formulations  have  not  been  presented.  This  is  not  in¬ 
tended  as  a  plea  for  the  retention  of  all  old  concepts. 
The  purpose  here  is  simply  to  suggest  the  need  of  a 
check  on  the  noticeable  tendency  to  consign  beliefs  to 
the  scrap-heap  before  certainty  is  established  that  they 
are  to  be  supplanted  by  others  that  are  better  or  even 
as  good. 

The  seeming  impossibility  of  successfully  applying 
this  negative  policy  in  an  absolute  way  is  illustrated  in 
Bacon’s  Novum  Organum ,  which  although  old  is 
highly  respected  by  science  because  of  the  influence  it 
has  had  upon  modern  scientific  methods  of  research.  In 
the  first  part  Bacon,  as  a  genuine  empiricist,  recom¬ 
mends  the  putting  aside  of  all  old  notions,  which  he 
classifies  as  Idols  of  the  Tribe,  Cave,  Market-place,  and 
Theater,  and  suggests  that  all  accepted  facts  be  estab¬ 
lished  by  means  of  a  large  number  of  experiments. 
And  then  in  the  very  heart  of  this  scientific  work  we 
find  him  saying,  “The  beginning  is  from  God ;  for  the 
business  which  is  in  hand,  having  the  character  of  good 


DISORGANIZED  SPIRITUAL  ENERGY  151 


so  strongly  impressed  upon  it,  appears  manifestly  to 
proceed  from  God,  who  is  the  author  of  good,  and  the 
Father  of  Lights.”  2  Bacon  was  not  able  to  reach 
such  conclusions  as  these  by  means  of  scientific 
analysis,  and  yet  he  unhesitatingly  accepts  them  as 
genuine  facts  because,  seemingly,  there  is  no  other 
reasonable  attitude  to  be  assumed. 

Very  frequently  we  meet  the  attitude  which  says 
science  shows  conclusively  that  the  Biblical  account 
of  the  origin  of  evil  is  wrong,  that  there  never  has  been 
such  an  event  as  a  “fall”  in  the  history  of  the  human 
race,  but  instead,  man  has  experienced  a  gradual  up¬ 
ward  climb  toward  a  bigger  and  better  life.  It  does 
seem  true  that  progress  has  characterized  the  known 
history  of  the  human  race,  but  in  the  light  of  these 
larger  claims  it  is  in  order  here  to-  ask,  what  science  is 
making  possible  such  definite  evidence  concerning  the 
evolution  of  man’s  moral  and  spiritual  experiences? 
The  physical  sciences,  by  means  of  the  Geological  book, 
are  able  to  study  the  development  of  so-called  life  since 
its  inception  way  back  in  the  Proterozoic  era,  but  these 
sciences  are  not  interesting  themselves  with  facts 
which  belong  primarily  to  the  realm  of  human  con¬ 
sciousness.  The  hopeful  outlook  for  this  kind  of 
knowledge  then  would  be  in  such  branches  of  study  as 
genetic  psychology,  sociology,  archeology,  ethnology, 
anthropology,  especially  the  last  named.  Compara¬ 
tively  speaking,  however,  these  sciences  can  go  but  a 
short  distance  into  the  past.  Concerning  man’s  moral 
status  they  give  us  nothing  genuinely  definite  that  ante¬ 
dates  facts  represented  in  the  written  languages  of  the 

2  Rand’s  Modern  Classical  Philosophers,  p.  49. 


152 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


oldest  civilizations,  which  reach  back  only  to  5000 
B.  c.,  making  the  record  of  man’s  thought  to  be  about 
7000  years  old.  On  the  other  hand,  the  oldest  relics 
of  the  human  species  belong  to  the  Pleistocene  period, 
indicating  that  man  has  been  on  the  earth  about 
1,000,000  years. 

If  science’s  classification  of  primitive  savages  “is 
based  on  the  degree  of  intelligence  manifested  in 
making  implements,”  and  if  scientific  knowledge  has  to 
do  with  facts  primarily  of  an  empirical  origin,  we  are 
inclined  to  question  the  possibility  of  obtaining  any 
conclusive  scientific  evidence  concerning  the  moral  de¬ 
velopment  of  the  human  species  which  would  cover  the 
entire  period  of  man’s  existence.  That  is  to  say,  when 
students  claim  there  never  has  been  a  hitch  in  the  spirit¬ 
ual  progress  of  the  human  species,  the  reasons  set  forth 
substantiating  such  claim  may  cover  such  a  small  part 
of  the  time  man  has  existed  as  to  make  the  claim  of 
very  uncertain  value.  Our  own  personal  experience 
has  been  that  when  asking  the  specialist,  the  anthropol¬ 
ogist  for  instance,  if  he  has  facts  which  contradict  the 
belief  that  “something  happened”  in  the  early  stages 
of  man’s  moral  relationships,  to  find  him,  the  anthrop¬ 
ologist,  answering  in  the  negative,  adding  that  his 
methods  and  interests  are  not  such  as  to  lead  him  to 
this  conclusion.  Thus,  while  the  Biblical  concept  may 
not  justify  itself  empirically  in  the  eyes  of  many  stu¬ 
dents,  it  is  able  nevertheless  to  defy  those  very  students 
to  set  forth  empirical  evidence  that  will  bring  about  its 
undoing. 

The  principal  point  intended  to  be  made  in  the  few 
paragraphs  immediately  preceding  is  that  no  student 


DISORGANIZED  SPIRITUAL  ENERGY  153 


should  insist  upon  making  his  particular  standards  of 
approach  absolute,  thus  throwing  out  all  facts  which 
do  not  happen  to  fit  his  methods.  Many  of  the  old 
concepts  abide  to-day  while  many  attempts  at  their 
analyses  have  long  since  been  forgotten.  It  makes  no 
difference  whether  it  is  or  is  not  true  that  the  Biblical 
theory  of  evil  is  borrowed;  we  are  interested  here  not 
in  the  origin  of  the  story  but  in  the  origin  of  evil 
itself,  which  the  story  sets  forth. 

In  proceeding,  we  insist  that  this  theory  is  offered 
not  simply  because  it  has  the  support  of  Biblical  author¬ 
ity  but  because  for  us  it  best  answers  the  demands  both 
of  empirical  discoveries  and  good  reason.  We  are  not 
concerned  as  to  whether  this  story  is  given  an  allegori¬ 
cal  interpretation  or  looked  upon  as  genuinely  real.  We 
are  interested  here  only  in  the  fact  that  it  suggests  that 
confusion  was  introduced  into  a  beautiful  life  of  har¬ 
mony.  The  account  of  what  happened  is  more  im¬ 
portant  in  our  discussion  than  the  way  it  happened. 

The  Biblical  account  of  the  origin  of  evil  is  very 
simple.  God  is  the  Creator  of  angels,  men,  all  things 
(not  out  of  nothing);  the  creative  process  probably 
being  the  same  for  all  forms  of  being.  The  angels 
were  endowed  with  free  will  the  same  as  human  beings. 
Some  of  them  through  disobedience  fell.  The  first 
man  or  group  of  men  came  in  touch  with  this  con¬ 
fusion  with  the  result  that  the  spirituality  of  human 
life  became  disorganized.  God  did  not  create  evil  but 
he  endowed  his  creatures  with  free  will  in  which  there 
was  the  possibility  of  going  away  from  him. 

In  modern  thought  there  is  a  feeling  that  the  free¬ 
dom  of  the  will  is  outgrown,  and  the  idea  meets  with 


154 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


very  strong  opposition  from  those  who  see  necessity 
chiefly  in  an  ordered  world  of  Nature.  It  seems,  how¬ 
ever,  that  these  two  views  are  reconcilable  and  that 
both  can  claim  a  large  degree  of  justification  for  their 
existence.  The  misunderstanding  is  probably  due  to 
the  fact  that  the  same  phenomena  have  not  been  kept 
in  mind.  It  should  be  remembered  that  human  experi¬ 
ences  have  a  relationship  to  what  might  be  called  sev¬ 
eral  different  worlds  of  beings,  in  which  different  laws 
operate ;  and  it  is  in  this  very  fact  that  the  problem  of 
free  will  can  find  its  explanation.  When  advocating 
freedom  of  the  will  we  are  talking  in  terms  of  psychol¬ 
ogy,  while  the  representative  of  causality  in  asserting 
his  claim  is  referring  to  the  laws  which  seem  ordinarily 
to  prevail  in  the  realms  of  physics,  chemistry,  and  bi¬ 
ology.  It  is  only  to  human  consciousness,  the  highest 
organization  of  spiritual  energy,  that  free  will  is  as¬ 
cribed;  all  lower  strata  of  reality  having  a  tendency  to 
free  will  only  in  the  measure  in  which  they,  in  the 
organization  of  their  very  being,  approach  the  likeness 
of  the  perfectly  organized  realm  of  human  conscious¬ 
ness.  So  it  is  easily  possible  to  think  of  man  as  a  free- 
willed  being,  living  in  a  world  of  so-called  determin¬ 
ism. 

It  would  be  easily  possible  at  this  time  to  drift  into  a 
discussion  of  the  possibility  of  evil  spirits  or  devils  de¬ 
veloping  in  the  general  evolutionary  process,  thus  giv¬ 
ing  to  evil  a  personal  representation,  but  here  such 
discussion  must  be  ruled  out  of  order. 

Let  us  look  more  closely  at  the  picture  of  evil  enter¬ 
ing  the  world  through  Adam  as  it  is  given  in  Genesis 
somewhat  in  detail.  Adam’s  experience  was  similar 


DISORGANIZED  SPIRITUAL  ENERGY  155 


no  doubt  to  that  of  the  fallen  angels,  plus  the  fact 
that  he  caught  the  contagion  from  them.  In  Eden  a 
line  of  demarcation  was  set  up  in  the  tree  of  knowl¬ 
edge  of  good  and  evil.  God  seems  to  have  said  to  the 
occupants  of  the  Garden:  “You  can  come  toward  me 
and  please  me  or  you  can  go  away  from  me,  which  is 
equivalent  to  disobedience,”  at  the  same  time  warning 
them  of  the  consequences  of  the  misstep.  Influ¬ 
enced  by  disorganized  spiritual  force  or  forces  already 
in  existence  (whether  personally  represented,  though 
easily  possible,  does  not  concern  us  now)  they  allowed 
themselves  to  make  the  mistake,  turned  away  from 
God  and  thus  became  guilty  of  disobedience.  The  re¬ 
sult  of  this  conscious  mistake  naturally  made  its  im¬ 
print  on  them  and  according  to  the  laws  of  heredity 
has  been  handed  down  to  all  posterity,  assuming  the 
form  of  a  negative  tendency. 

It  is  then  in  the  fall  of  the  angels  and  of  Adam  and 
Eve  in  the  Garden  of  Eden  that  we  meet  the  occasion 
for  the  introduction  of  evil  into  human  life  and  prob¬ 
ably  into  man’s  whole  world  of  reality,  whoever  Adam 
and  Eve  were  and  whatever  the  Garden  of  Eden  was. 
We  should  keep  in  mind  that  according  to  this  repre¬ 
sentation  evil  existed  before  the  Edenic  experience. 
But  let  us  not  make  the  mistake  here  of  picturing  in 
our  minds  too  exactly  the  details  of  this  specific  situa¬ 
tion.  The  idea  that  God,  like  a  mechanic  with  a  set  of 
tools  set  himself  to  the  task  of  making  a  world,  a 
Garden  of  Eden,  human  beings,  etc.,  must  fade  away 
as  we  come  face  to  face  with  known  facts.  It  is  better 
to  see  that  an  all-intelligence  could  and  has  found  his 
best  creative  expression  in  a  gigantic  program  which 


156 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


took  a  countless  number  of  years  of  development  be¬ 
fore  man  began  to  play  a  conscious,  leading  role  in  the 
drama  of  world  activities. 

We  repeat  that  the  significant  thing  for  us  in  the 
story  of  Genesis  is  that  something  happened  some  time 
in  the  history  of  the  universe  which  disorganized  the 
system  of  spiritual  forces,  opening  the  way  for  possible 
chaos ;  also  the  outstanding  fact  that  the  break  occurred 
in  the  realm  of  human  consciousness.  To  have  be¬ 
come  universal,  permeating  the  last  iota  of  being,  even 
the  inorganic  world  itself  having  inherited  its  influ¬ 
ence,  this  confusion  or  friction  had  to  originate  in  the 
highest  organization  of  spiritual  energy  or  reality.  Be¬ 
ginning  at  headquarters  it  could  thus  reach  down,  but 
it  could  not  have  begun  in  a  lower  strata  of  being  and 
reached  up  in  such  a  universal  way.  Looked  at  from 
every  angle,  this  program  which  makes  evil  to  be  a  dis¬ 
organized  spiritual  energy  bears  the  marks  of  a  com¬ 
pleteness  and  harmony  with  facts  as  they  seem  to  be, 
which  are  lacking  in  so  many  attempts  to  explain  this 
problem.3 

Should  we  try,  it  would  be  impossible  to  get  away 
from  evil  as  a  universal,  inherent  reality.  “Virtue  and 
vice  are  not  revelations — they  are  instincts  planted  in 
the  soul.”  There  are  many,  however,  who  object  to 
that  interpretation  of  evil  which  makes  it  inherent  in 
life.  But  even  those  who  dissent  from  this  attitude 
will  consent  to  talk  of  the  two  natures,  the  two  selves. 

3  The  reader  should  continually  keep  in  mind  the  fact  that  we 
are  representing  all  things  as  having  a  spiritual  nature,  the  various 
types  of  being  differing  only  in  the  organization  of  the  units  of 
spiritual  energy  which  constitute  their  make-up. 


DISORGANIZED  SPIRITUAL  ENERGY  157 


Psychology  recognizes  a  fundamental  spirit  of  self- 
regard  while  theology  talks  in  terms  of  native  deprav¬ 
ity.  It  is  only  in  some  such  theory  of  evil  as  this  that 
our  dualistic  ethics  can  be  reconciled  to  the  monotheis¬ 
tic  metaphysics  which  is  generally  taught,  and  the  truth 
of  which  we  have  no  reason  whatsoever  to  disbelieve. 
By  what  other  interpretation  of  evil  could  we  explain 
the  fact  that  universally  associated  with  the  conver¬ 
sion  experience  is  a  feeling  of  undoneness,  a  conviction 
of  sin?  This  has  to  be  more  than  a  mere  coincidence. 
In  the  persistence  of  such  experiences,  which  seemingly 
reach  into  the  past  for  their  general  cause,  we  have  a 
situation  which  has  justifiably  encouraged  belief  in 
some  kind  of  a  doctrine  of  inherent  evil. 

Some  peoples  meeting  evil  as  a  reality,  and  trying 
to  satisfy  themselves  with  a  definite  program,  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  this  fact,  practiced  the  custom  of  taking  over 
the  gods  of  conquered  foes,  making  them  their  evil 
gods.  Even  in  the  Old  Testament  we  find  the  Hebrews 
coming  face  to  face  with  evil  as  a  fact  and  seemingly 
not  knowing  what  else  to  do,  ascribe  to  Jehovah  him¬ 
self  responsibility  for  it,  thus  making  him  the  repre¬ 
sentative  and  dispenser  of  both  good  and  bad.4 

The  theory  which  we  are  presenting  finds  support 
also  in  the  fact  that  it  is  impossible,  on  the  part  of 
many  thinkers,  to  believe  that  evil  really  has  a  rightful 
place  in  the  vast  program  of  spiritual  being.  Even 
though  evil  with  its  irregularities  seems  to  be  a  part  of 
the  general  process  of  becoming  it  could  hardly  have 

4  Joshua  23: 15 ;  Judges  2 : 15 ;  9 :  23 ;  1  Samuel  16:14;  1  Sam¬ 
uel  18: 10;  1  Kings  9:9;  Jeremiah  41 : 11 ;  Jonah  3 : 10;  4:2,  etc. 


158 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


been  created  for  the  purpose  of  playing  such  a  definite, 
negative  role.  It  is  our  belief  that  in  the  realm  of 
values  the  negative  has  been  stressed  too  much.  There 
is  too  strong  a  tendency  to  teach  the  awfulness  of  evil 
rather  than  a  positive  program  which  emphasizes  the 
beauty  and  worth  of  good.  Native  depravity  is  signi¬ 
ficant  and  real  but  hardly  as  much  so  as  the  fact  that 
it  is  possible  to  ascend,  to  become  like  God.  It  is  true 
we  find  universally  hot  and  cold,  weak  and  strong,  sick 
and  well,  large  and  small,  good  and  bad,  etc.,  and  yet 
a  system  built  on  the  idea  of  the  necessity  of  all  these 
opposites  has  not  demonstrated  its  claims,  to  the  satis¬ 
faction  of  many  thinkers.  That  contrasts  exist,  no  one 
would  think  of  doubting,  but  we  can  see  no  necessary 
and  certain  teleology  in  them  which  would  justify  the 
claim  that  in  order  for  good  to  exist  it  must  have  its 
opposite,  bad.  Self-expression  and  realization  belong 
in  the  list  of  fundamental  impulses  but  it  seems  that 
evil’s  relationship  to  these  processes  is  only  that  of 
ultimate  retardation. 

There  are  some  students,  however,  who  take  the  op¬ 
posite  view  and  claim  that  evil  is  performing  its  func¬ 
tion  as  a  positive  factor  in  the  world  of  general  ex¬ 
periences.  This  seems  to  be  a  reasonable  attitude  for 
him  who  does  not  see  the  Creator  as  a  personal  agent 
nor  in  the  aspects  of  omniscience  and  omnipotence. 
But  when  we  believe  the  Creator  to  be  an  all-intelligent 
Being,  it  seemingly  is  inconsistent,  and  inconceivable 
as  well,  that  he  should  introduce  evil  into  his  plan  of 
creation,  with  its  resultant  sorrow,  tragedy  and  woe, 
in  order  ultimately  to  bring  a  kingdom  of  righteous¬ 
ness  into  being.  God  could  not  be  responsible  for  the 


DISORGANIZED  SPIRITUAL  ENERGY  159 


presence  of  evil  and  then  rightfully  expect  human 
beings  to  heed  the  wise  admonition  of  abhoring  that 
which  is  evil  and  cleaving  to  that  which  is  good. 

By  no  means  was  this  Jesus’  notion  of  evil.  His  life 
constitutes  a  tremendous  denouncement  of  the  nega¬ 
tive  factors  which  operate  against  human  welfare. 
“He  nowhere  says  that  sickness  is  a  beneficent  inflic¬ 
tion,  and  that  evil  has  a  healthy  use.  No,  he  calls 
sickness  sickness  and  health  health.  All  evil,  all 
wretchedness,  is  for  him  something  dreadful;  it  is  of 
the  great  kingdom  of  Satan.  .  .  .  He  knows  that  ad¬ 
vance  is  possible  only  when  weakness  is  overcome, 
when  sickness  is  made  well.”  5  The  correct  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  Jesus’  work  is  to  be  seen  in  the  “overcoming 
and  removal  of  misery,  of  need,  of  sickness  .  .  .  the 
casting  out  of  devils,”  and  he  points  to  the  last  part 
of  this  program  as  the  “sense  and  seal  of  his  mission.” 

The  climactic  realization  of  this  retrogressive  ten¬ 
dency,  evil,  is  seen  in  death,  the  breaking  up  of  inferior 
systems  of  spiritual  energy.  This  then  makes  death 
to  be  the  natural  result  of  man’s  conscious  interrup¬ 
tion  of  a  perfectly  organized  program.  In  other  words, 
the  universal  penalty  inflicted  by  evil  is  death.  And 
when  we  see  all  life  fighting  for  its  own  preservation 
and  all  being  naturally  revolting  against  death,  we  are 
made  to  feel  that  the  introduction  of  evil  into  the 
world,  bringing  conflict  in  its  train,  must  be  looked 
upon  as  an  event  born  out  of  season,  having  no  place 
in  the  original  program  of  the  Creator. 

Facts,  therefore,  as  they  seem  to  be,  point  to  that 

5  Harnack,  in  Das  W esen  des  Christenthums,  1900,  p.  39. 
Quoted  from  James’  Varieties  of  Religious  Experience ,  p.  100. 


160  RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 

system  of  belief  which  sees  a  world  of  spiritual  reality, 
into  the  original  plan  of  whose  Maker  confusion  has 
been  introduced,  this  intrusion  rooting  its  cause  into 
the  freedom  of  choice  with  which  the  Creator  endowed 
his  creatures.  And  the  resultant  disorganization  hav¬ 
ing  reached  into  the  whole  realm  of  being,  tends  to 
impede  the  progress  of  things  which,  nevertheless,  re¬ 
sponsive  to  the  higher  appeal,  move  on  and  up  toward 
God. 


Chapter  IV 


POSITIVE  VALUES1 

As  has  been  suggested  before,  the  entire  program 
represented  in  this  volume  may  be  characterized  as  a 
search  for  the  real.  In  the  ultimate  analysis  of  things 
there  was  met  what  has  been  called  psychical  energy, 
the  highest  organization  of  this  final  reality  being  the 
consciousness  of  mind.  It  was  then  concluded  that  in 
the  association  of  the  units  of  energy  an  attractive  ele¬ 
ment  prevails  and  that  ascending  progress  character¬ 
izes  the  whole  order  of  things,  in  and  above  which  is 
an  unmoved  Mover,  God.  Having  studied  the  nature 
of  reality  and  how  the  units  of  energy  are  related  to 
one  another,  the  last  step  yet  remains  to  be  taken.  It 
would  seem  natural  that  in  our  search  the  final  prob¬ 
lem  would  be  to  seek  a  better  understanding  of  what  is 
involved  in  the  relationships  which  exist  between  the 
highest  organizations  of  reality  referred  to  above — 
active  human  minds,  endowed  with  the  possibility  of 
consciousness.  This  introduces  us  into  the  realm  of 
personality.  We  have  found  a  close  relationship  to 
exist  between  God  and  the  world  and  are  justified 
surely  in  anticipating  a  particular  linkage  to  exist  be¬ 
tween  him  and  the  very  highest  types  of  being,  as  well 
as  between  these  persons  themselves.  It  would  seem 

1  This  chapter  is  a  reproduction  of  the  Author’s  article,  “Posi¬ 
tive  Values  in  Human  Experience,”  appearing  in  the  July- 
August  issue  of  the  Methodist  Review,  by  permission  of  the 
editor. 


161 


162 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


to  be  in  this  higher  realm  that  we  should  expect  to 
find  the  most  worth-while  facts  which  can  possibly  be 
realized — genuine  values.  The  preceding  chapter  was 
given  over  to  a  discussion  of  those  negative  factors 
called  evil,  so  our  immediate  interest  now  will  be  a 
study  of  positive  facts,  positive  values  in  human  ex¬ 
perience.  As  we  proceed  it  will  seem  evident  that 
there  is  a  definite  relationship  between  the  work  of  this 
unmoved  Mover,  God,  and  the  program  represented 
by  the  Christ  of  Revelation.  That  is,  it  is  in  some  such 
outline  as  has  been  set  forth  herein  to  which  the  Chris¬ 
tian  view  of  God  and  the  world  answers  and  gives 
endorsement. 

In  the  first  part  of  a  discussion  of  positive  values 
it  would  seem  very  fitting  that  some  explanation  be 
made  as  to  what  is  meant  by  values.  An  attempt  im¬ 
mediately  to  clear  up  this  point,  while  seemingly  an 
incidental  matter,  is  probably  more  difficult  of  achieve¬ 
ment  than  the  casual  observer  might  think.  And  al¬ 
though  it  may  be  even  impossible  to  give  a  definition  of 
value  which  will  satisfy  the  exacting  critic,  it  is  in 
order,  in  the  interest  of  a  mutual  understanding,  at 
least  to  make  a  statement  as  to  what  we  are  going  to 
mean  by  the  term  in  this  chapter.  So  with  this  pur¬ 
pose  specifically  in  mind  the  position  is  taken  that 
anything  of  an  abiding  character  which  appeals  to  us 
and  calls  forth  a  response — that  which  appeals  to  us, 
having  content  sufficient  for  the  realization  of  our  de¬ 
sires  and  motives,  thus  affording  a  sense  of  satisfaction 
and  fulfillment — may  be  looked  upon  as  a  value.  It 
may  be  said,  however,  that  there  are  many  things  which 
make  tremendous  appeals  and  get  whole-hearted  re- 


POSITIVE  VALUES 


163 


sponses  and  yet  cannot  be  looked  upon  as  values.  This 
makes  it  necessary  early  in  our  study  to  differentiate 
between  values,  placing  some  on  the  credit  and  some 
on  the  debit  side  of  the  ledger,  calling  one  group  of 
values  positive  and  the  other  negative.  Those  things 
which  contribute  to*  the  enrichment  and  ennoblement  of 
life,  proving  to  be  assets  in  human  experience,  are  con¬ 
sidered  positive  values.  On  the  other  hand,  those 
things  which  actually  cost  something  and  take  away 
from  the  capital  of  things  worth  while,  thus  becoming 
liabilities  in  life,  are  to  be  looked  upon  as  negative 
values. 

As  a  possible  method  of  approach  to  our  task  the 
general  field  of  so-called  intrinsic  values  in  life  might 
be  presented  under  the  following  heads:  economic, 
bodily,  recreational,  intellectual,  sesthetic,  moral,  and 
religious.  Following  this  suming-up  the  question  nat¬ 
urally  arises  as  to  which  of  these  special  fields  represent 
the  real  and  lasting  verities— genuinely  positive  values. 
As  an  answer  to  this  possible  query,  each  one  should 
be  examined,  briefly  but  with  care  sufficient  to  avoid 
unfairness. 

The  right  of  economic  values,  though  practical  and 
popular,  to  be  classed  as  genuine  is  generally  ques¬ 
tioned.  Present  day  experiences  corroborate  history 
as  to  the  correctness  of  this  attitude.  The  story  of 
the  rich  man,  tearing  down  his  barns  in  order  to  build 
larger  and  better,  rings  in  the  ears  of  all  who  would 
make  wealth  identical  with  real  and  lasting  posses¬ 
sions.  Nor  can  bodily  values  such  as  eating,  drinking, 
etc.,  be  placed  in  the  category  of  things  which  really 
count  for  the  most.  While  many  may  see  in  the  satisfac- 


164 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


tion  of  bodily  desires  a  goal  seemingly  worth  striving 
for,  it  is  generally  realized  in  moments  of  calmer  medi¬ 
tation  that  the  body  is  but  a  vehicle  for  a  something 
more  significant  and  far-reaching,  being  but  a  tempo¬ 
rary  structure  which  eventually  “crumbles  back  to 
dust.”  Its  pleasures  are  but  for  a  season,  of  which 
Belshazzar’s  feast  is  a  constant  reminder.  Likewise 
to  so-called  recreational  values  must  be  ascribed  a  simi¬ 
lar  transiency.  Coming  to  intellectual  values,  we  find 
that  they  are  too  cold  and  abstract  to  possess  the 
richness  which  should  characterize  genuine  goods. 
When  at  their  best,  unaided,  they  rise  but  to  the  level 
of  scholasticism.  When  examining  aesthetic  values,  it 
is  more  difficult  to  reach  a  conclusion  as  to  what  classi¬ 
fication  should  be  given  them  in  relation  to  ultimate 
truths.  The  advocate  of  pancalism  would  probably 
give  these  values  first  place  in  the  realm  of  things  ulti¬ 
mately  best,  stressing  the  fact  that  aesthetics  does  not 
concern  itself  at  all  with  the  ugly,  building  only  around 
the  beautiful.  Since,  however,  art  aims  only  at  pleas¬ 
ure,  not  to  teach  the  scope  of  its  purpose  can  justifia¬ 
bly  be  questioned.  If  art  is  only  for  art’s  sake,  are  its 
ends  sufficiently  big  to  represent  abiding  verities  ?  But 
while  the  beautiful  of  aesthetics  may  not  seem  to  be 
identical  with  ultimate  truths,  we  have  here  surely  a 
significant  avenue  of  approach  to  the  higher  experi¬ 
ences  of  life.  And  if  aesthetic  values  cannot  be  put  on 
a  par  with  the  highest,  art  must  at  least  be  looked 
upon  as  a  vital  agency,  accessory  to  an  appreciation  of 
the  most  genuine  facts  in  human  experience. 

It  is  when  coming  to  moral  and  religious  values, 
seemingly,  that  contact  is  established  with  those  things 


POSITIVE  VALUES 


165 


most  worth  while  in  life.  In  our  search  for  real  values 
it  would  seem  necessary  to  pass  by  all  the  fields  which 
have  been  hastily  reviewed,  and  suggest  the  belief  ten¬ 
tatively  that  the  objects  of  our  search  are  to  be  found 
in  the  domain  of  ethics  and  religion.  In  fact  it  might 
be  consistent  to  say  that  religion  itself  represents  the 
realm  which  contains  all  genuine  virtues.  It  seems 
reasonable,  however,  that  since  conduct  represents  so 
much  of  life,  and  since  ethics  has  to  do  with  conduct  in 
so  far  as  it  is  good  or  bad,  right  or  wrong,  ethics  might 
seem  to  claim  a  place  beside  religion,  as  far  as  values 
are  concerned.  But  religion  is  just  as  much  concerned 
with  conduct  as  is  ethics.  In  fact  the  field  of  religion 
seems  to  be  inclusive  of  all  in  which  ethics  is  interested. 
The  attitude  of  those  who  would  make  morality  and 
religion  identical  will  hardly  stand  the  test  of  a  careful 
analysis.  There  is  morality  in  religion  but  religion 
moves  on  beyond  this.  Some  one  has  said  in  sub¬ 
stance  that  in  any  well-balanced  conception  of  religion 
three  universal  elements  are  to  be  found : 

1.  Recognition  of  a  power  beyond  our  control. 

2.  Feeling  of  dependence  upon  this  power. 

3.  Entering  into  relations  with  this  power. 

Religion  then  is  active  and  dynamic.  It  is  a  striving 

to  become,  an  active  yearning  for  relations  with  that 
Power  which  we  conceive  as  “having  ultimate  control 
over  our  interests  and  destinies.”  2  It  is  not  limited 
to  the  world  of  human  relationships.  It  is  interested 
in  conduct  good  or  bad,  right  or  wrong,  but  it  goes 
further  than  this.  It  is  morality  plus  God,  plus  belief, 
plus  worship.  But  in  morality  there  is  not  necessarily 

2  Compare  Pratt’s  The  Religious  Consciousness ,  p.  2. 


166 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


any  God,  neither  belief  nor  worship.  Religion,  then, 
which  is  a  natural  something,  perhaps  a  composite  of 
instincts,  seems  to  be  the  big  “living-room”  of  life. 
These  things  being  true,  it  would  seem  reasonable  to 
believe  that  it  is  within  the  realm  of  religious  phe¬ 
nomena  that  the  positive  and  genuine  verities  of  human 
experience  are  to  be  realized. 

To  say  simply  that  positive  values  are  to  be  found 
within  religious  experience  does  not  reduce  the  resi¬ 
dence  of  these  truths  to  a  sufficiently  definite  locus  and 
does  not  give  satisfactory  enlightenment  as  to  any  of 
their  distinctive  characteristics.  Seeking  this  specific 
information  leads  us  to  be  interested  in  knowing  with 
what  phase  or  level  of  human  activity  these  values  are 
always  associated.  And  with  this  end  in  view,  taking 
our  lead  primarily  from  Dewey  and  Tufts,  we  would 
call  attention  briefly  to  the  three  levels  of  conduct  char¬ 
acteristic  of  human  relationships : 3 

1.  The  instinctive  level.  This  represents  a  primi¬ 
tive  situation  where  people  act  according  to  instinctive 
impulses  and  needs.  Society  in  general  has  risen  above 
this  level. 

2.  The  level  of  standards  and  customs.  Here  peo¬ 
ple  aim  primarily  to  conform  to  the  standards  and  cus¬ 
toms  of  the  group. 

3.  The  individual,  reflective  level.  Here  beliefs  and 
standards  are  weighed  and  criticized,  and  then  ac¬ 
cepted  or  rejected  according  to  the  wish  of  the  agent. 
This  is  outstandingly  the  personal  level,  the  individual 
rather  than  the  group  being  the  unit  which  figures  in 
situations. 

3  Compare  Dewey  and  Tufts’  Ethics,  p.  38,  passim. 


POSITIVE  VALUES 


167 


The  instinctive  level  is  animal-like:  here  acts  are 
performed  in  a  blind  way.  The  second  level  of  cus¬ 
toms  and  standards  represents  bridled  activity,  despite 
the  fact  that  much  of  conduct  fails  to  rise  any  higher. 
It  is  on  the  third  level,  the  personal,  that  the  highest 
type  of  living  is  experienced.  It  is  here  that  life’s 
richest  meanings  are  realized.  As  one  rises  to  this 
level  from  time  to  time  he  comes  into  the  realm  of 
eternal  verities.  It  is  on  this  level  that  one  thinks  his 
way  through  problems  as  a  person,  this  being  the  way 
customs  are  made  better,  standards  lifted,  and  new 
values  discovered.  We  would  not  be  understood  as 
decrying  standards,  laws,  etc.,  or  as  saying  that  no 
values  are  to  be  found  in  group  experiences.  No  one 
would  be  willing  to  doubt  the  worth  of  standards  as 
instruments  of  progress.  But  even  in  groups  we  can 
act  in  a  limited  way  as  persons.  Surely  standards  are 
needed  but  no  one  can  afford  to  form  the  habit  of  pas¬ 
sively  accepting  all  standards  without  ever  demanding 
that  they  submit  themselves  to  the  pragmatic  test. 
People  of  all  ages  have  gone  back  too  much  to  creeds, 
councils,  etc.,  and  not  enough  to  the  fountains  of  truth, 
conscientiously  scrutinizing  and  criticizing  facts. 
Wisdom  dictates  that  individuals  should  critically  ana¬ 
lyze  standards,  often  rise  above  them  and  thus  pull  the 
standards  up  higher.  It  is  only  in  this  way  that  progress 
is  made  possible.  All  the  great  leaders  who  have  made 
contributions  to  the  world’s  good  have  lived  and 
worked  largely  on  this  highest  level — Luther,  Huss, 
Calvin,  Knox,  Wesley,  etc.,  etc.  They  analyzed  and 
criticized  beliefs  and  customs  and  rising  above  them, 
led  large  numbers  to  a  higher  plane  of  belief  and  ac- 


168 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


tivity.  Many  standards  thus  come  to  be  means  to 
ends,  and  are  not  to  be  looked  upon  as  absolutely  fixed. 

It  is  clearly  perceived  that  when  the  group  level 
methods  crowd  out  those  of  the  personal  level,  prog¬ 
ress  is  bridled.  The  general  lesson  which  the  church 
has  learned  in  this  respect  stands  as  an  example  par 
excellence.  For  centuries  there  was  the  feeling  that  the 
bulk  of  truth  had  been  revealed  and  that  the  standards 
and  laws  for  all  ages  had  been  decreed.  Thus  prog¬ 
ress  along  every  line  was  impeded.  The  church  spoke 
for  science  and  consequently  there  was  no  scientific 
advance.  For  instance,  several  centuries  b.  c.,  the  be¬ 
lief  was  current  that  the  celestial  bodies  moved  about 
a  central  fire.  Aristotle,  however,  believed  differently 
and  in  his  program  put  the  earth  at  the  center  and 
made  the  other  bodies,  including  the  sun,  to  revolve 
about  it.  This  idea  was  embodied  in  the  Ptolemaic 
system  of  astronomy  which  was  adopted  by  the  church. 
And  so  the  theory  of  concentric  crystalline  spheres,  one 
inside  the  other  like  the  rings  of  an  onion,  the  earth 
being  at  the  center,  prevailed  until  the  sixteenth  cen¬ 
tury  a.d.  This  view  being  sponsored  by  the  church 
the  world  had  to  wait  for  a  Copernicus  and  Galileo  for 
the  banishment  of  the  old  mistaken  geocentric  theory. 
So  long  as  no  individuals  dared  to  challenge  the  teach¬ 
ings  of  the  group  there  was  no  progress.  A  static 
church  with  all  beliefs  absolutely  fixed  and  teaching 
the  “universalia  ante  rem”  doctrine  for  the  most  part 
without  any  compromise  proved  to  be  a  dead  church. 
Incidentally,  herein  lies  a  lesson  for  the  church  to-day. 
As  the  organized  representative  of  religion,  in  the  in- 


POSITIVE  VALUES 


169 


terest  of  progress,  she  must  be  alert  to  the  newest  dis¬ 
coveries  of  scientific  truth  (not  fads).  Not  that  sci¬ 
ence  can  satisfactorily  analyze  the  richest  values  but  it 
can  aid  in  the  discovery  and  understanding  of  truth 
and  as  a  result  of  these  comes  appreciation.  It  seems 
true  that  as  strictly  group  relationships  so  often  stand 
for  a  curtailment  of  original,  dynamic  activity,  the  ini¬ 
tiative  to  progress  universally  has  its  origin  in  individ¬ 
ual  persons.  And  so  it  is  to  the  reflective  level  of  con¬ 
duct  where  we  act  as  individual  persons  that  we  must 
look  for  the  largest  possibilities  in  the  discovery  and 
appreciation  of  life’s  richest  meanings.  In  other 
words,  in  the  personal  factor  is  recognized  the  distinc¬ 
tive  feature  of  religious  values. 

All  this  accords  with  the  original  definition  of  values 
which  represented  them  as  being  those  things  which  ap¬ 
peal  to  us  and  make  possible  the  realization  of  desires 
and  motives,  thus  affording  a  sense  of  satisfaction  and 
fulfillment.  At  that  time  it  was  not  the  intention  to 
emphasize  the  idea  of  satisfaction  and  fulfillment  but 
rather  the  personal  pronoun  us,  which  means  that  gen¬ 
uine  values  are  recognized  and  appreciated  by  ourselves 
as  persons.  While  satisfaction  figures,  it  is  not  nearly 
so  significant  as  the  character  of  the  agent  who  has  to 
do  with  the  values.  If  it  were  just  a  case  of  satisfac¬ 
tion  any  animal  might  take  precedence  over  persons  in 
the  acquisition  of  values,  for  “the  being  whose  capaci¬ 
ties  of  enjoyment  are  low  has  the  greatest  chance  of 
having  them  fully  satisfied;  and  a  highly  endowed  be¬ 
ing  will  always  feel  that  any  happiness  which  he  can 
look  for,  as  the  world  is  constituted,  is  imperfect — it 


170 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


is  better  to  be  a  human  being  dissatisfied  than  a  pig 
satisfied;  better  to  be  a  Socrates  dissatisfied  than  a  fool 
satisfied/’  4 

If  persons  are  to  realize  these  values,  if  there  is  to  be 
religious  experience,  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  there 
must  be  relations  between  persons  and  the  Supreme 
Person.  Possibly  ultimate  truths  may  be  said  to  re¬ 
side  in  persons  but  their  luster  is  lighted  up  only  when 
brought  into  relationship  with  other  values.  Every 
person  is  but  a  part  of  mankind.  There  is  no  such 
thing  as  a  real  value  apart  from  friendship,  sympathy, 
love,  cooperation,  communication.  This  fact  of  rela¬ 
tions  while  being  stressed  in  much  of  modern  thought 
is  a  neglected  fact  in  the  attitude  of  many  students. 
There  is  a  tendency  to  look  upon  certain  things  as  units 
of  reals  and  overlook  the  fact  that  the  relations  which 
exist  between  these  things  are  just  as  real  as  the  things 
themselves,  perhaps  more  so,  and  constitute  an  abso¬ 
lutely  vital  factor  in  the  realm  of  ultimate  truths.  To 
use  a  crude  illustration,  the  clock  on  the  shelf  is  worth¬ 
less  out  of  relation  to  other  things.  If  it  were  out  in 
the  forest  where  it  had  no  live  contacts,  it  might  just 
as  well  not  exist  as  far  as  its  worth  is  concerned.  It 
is  only  when  it  is  brought  into  a  situation,  conscious 
and  personal,  that  it  has  any  meaning  at  all.  Thus  it 
seems  to  be  only  in  the  realm  of  personal  relationships 
that  genuine  values  are  to  be  found.  It  is  here  that 
the  climb  is  completed  from  thinghood  to  selfhood. 
Here  we  meet  the  highest  realization  of  reality,  the 
world  of  selves  in  process  of  development  being  the 
world  of  real  values.  The  conception  of  self  here  is 

4  J.  S.  Mill,  quoted  from  Rand’s  The  Classical  Moralists,  p.  651. 


POSITIVE  VALUES 


171 


made  clearer  in  suggesting  that  in  a  spiritualistic  sys¬ 
tem  of  philosophy  mind  can  be  looked  upon  as  reality 
becoming  conscious  of  itself,  and  self  a  part  of  mind 
personified.  The  foregoing  is  not  contradictory  to 
saying  that  values  are  found  in  the  realm  of  religious 
experience  because  persons  are  the  only  agents  to  whom 
religious  propensities  can  be  ascribed. 

The  idea  of  the  significance  of  personal  relation¬ 
ships  is  made  more  acceptable  by  the  fact  that  it  is  only 
in  such  relationships  as  these  that  genuine  purpose  and 
freedom  are  realized — two  essential  factors  in  the 
category  of  things  really  valuable,  two  factors  which 
seem  to  belong  only  to  persons.  It  may  be  said  that 
purpose  appears  elsewhere,  which  surely  is  a  fact,  but 
elsewhere,  being  impersonal  it  is  so  general  as  to  lose 
the  edge  of  its  impressiveness.  It  is  only  in  the  per¬ 
sonal  agent  that  pointed  and  specific  purpose  reveals  it¬ 
self,  as  well  as  freedom  which  is  the  right  of  choosing 
alternatives.  These  vital  appurtenances  belong  only 
to  those  who  have  risen  to  the  level  of  moral  and  re¬ 
ligious  relationships — persons.  Thus  it  would  seem 
to  be  only  in  the  personal  relationships  of  religious  ex¬ 
perience  that  positive  values  are  to  be  found. 

How  are  these  ultimate  truths  to  be  recognized,  ac¬ 
quired,  appreciated?  This  question  belongs  to  a  field 
which  has  provided  the  battleground  for  many  inter¬ 
esting  controversies.  Trying  to  answer  will  be  to  sug¬ 
gest  a  theory  of  knowledge  which  as  such  would  have 
to  do  with  the  reality  and  sources  of  truth.  That  is, 
going  on  the  assumption  that  when  speaking  in  terms 
of  ultimate  truths,  real  facts,  genuine  verities,  positive 
values,  we  are  dealing  with  the  same  things,  ours  does 


172 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


at  this  time  become  fundamentally  an  epistemological 
problem.  And  since  the  attempt  has  already  been  made 
to  define  the  meaning  of  values,  our  particular  interest 
now  has  to  do  more  with  the  source  of  truth,  trying 
to  see  how  these  values  are  realized  and  appre¬ 
ciated. 

One  school  of  thought  would  answer  this  saying  that 
ultimate  facts  are  obtained  by  means  of  reason.  Some 
students  of  this  same  school  would  go  even  further  and 
say  that  in  rational  activity  itself  the  highest  good  is 
realized.  It  seems,  however,  that  while  the  rationalistic 
method  is  very  useful  and  essential  in  the  discovery  of 
truth,  it  can  be  a  very  cold  and  mechanical  process,  too 
much  so  to  become  the  avenue  of  approach  to  a  full 
understanding  and  appreciation  of  the  genuine  verities 
of  life. 

Another  group  of  students,  those  inclined  to  posi¬ 
tive  science,  will  have  but  little  to  do  with  reason  and 
feel  that  sense  experience  is  the  only  dependable  source 
of  truth.  This  is  really  the  experimental  method  and 
depends  mostly  upon  laboratory  findings.  While  being 
a  very  worth-while  method,  it  seems  helpless  when 
trying  to  deal  with  supreme  values,  ultimate  truths. 
This  method  is  well  able  to  deal  with  the  quantitative 
aspects  of  things,  but  when  treating  values  we  must  go 
deeper  than  this.  We  must  get  on  the  inside  of  facts, 
if  possible,  and  learn  something  of  their  qualitative 
make-up.  It  would  seemingly  have  to  be  a  materialis¬ 
tic  attitude  which  could  be  altogether  satisfied  with  the 
facts  obtained  by  means  of  the  purely  empirical 
method. 

So  it  seems  that  while  both  the  methods  named  may 


POSITIVE  VALUES 


173 


be  generally  useful  in  the  discovery  of  facts,  they  really 
play  but  a  limited  part  as  far  as  establishing  a  relation¬ 
ship  with  real  values  is  concerned.  But  while  the  self 
is  reaching  out  for  values  why  is  it  necessary  to  de¬ 
pend  on  any  such  intermediary  agencies?  Is  it  not 
reasonable  to  believe  that  as  persons  we  can  establish 
direct  contacts  with  truth?  Remembering  the  belief 
suggested  earlier  in  this  chapter  that  an  appreciation 
of  positive  values  is  impossible  apart  from  personal 
relationships,  why  may  not  values  as  we  possess  them 
have  direct  relations  with  outside  values  as  possessed 
by  other  persons  and  the  Supreme  Person?  In  other 
words,  it  seems  that  as  of  old  each  individual  can  jus¬ 
tifiably  believe  in  the  right  to  say,  ‘‘Speak  Lord,  thy 
servant  heareth,”  and  expect  truth  to  flow  in.  This 
attitude  represents  the  possibility  of  the  immediate  ap¬ 
prehension  of  values  and  may  be  called  intuition,  mys¬ 
ticism,  insight,  illumination,  or  to  use  a  theological 
term,  revelation. 

Some  students,  however,  may  object  to  this  belief, 
saying  that  it  smacks  of  the  spirit  which  takes  delight 
in  riding  on  the  wings  of  feeling,  and  that  it  represents 
a  too  liberal  indulgence  in  speculation,  adding  that 
there  is  no  scientific  basis  for  assuming  such  an  atti¬ 
tude.  But  has  not  the  experience  of  the  average  stu¬ 
dent  made  it  seem  a  mistake  to  assume  that  all  truths 
must  wait  upon  a  satisfactory  scientific  analysis  for 
their  acceptance?  Elsewhere  in  this  book  we  have 
suggested  this  to  be  an  unfair  and  unwise  attitude. 
Leaving  this  point  as  an  open  question  which  need  not 
be  decided  here,  are  we  sure  that  for  the  method  pro¬ 
posed  above  there  is  no  genuinely  scientific  justifica- 


174 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


tion?  Hardly  so,  because  in  our  immediate  apprehen¬ 
sion  of  values,  our  senses,  especially  the  intimate  senses, 
are  playing  a  definite  part.  It  can  be  truly  believed 
that  intuition  works  on  the  basis  of  sense  data.  This 
does  not  mean  that  all  truths  which  the  individual  pos¬ 
sesses  have  necessarily  come  in  from  the  outside,  be¬ 
cause  it  may  be  that  there  are  innate  facts  which  are  a 
part  of  the  individual’s  very  being.  It  seems  reasonable 
to  believe  that  there  is  such  a  capital  of  resources  with 
which  every  person  begins  business.  This  as  over 
against  Locke’s  belief  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  in¬ 
tellect  which  was  not  first  in  the  senses,  making  the 
mind  like  a  piece  of  white  paper,  a  rubbed-off  tablet 
upon  which  impressions  have  been  tabulated  through 
the  senses.  Our  interests  at  the  present  time  are  not 
so  much  concerned  with  this  phase  of  the  problem  as 
with  the  possibility  of  subjective  values  having  a  re¬ 
lationship  with  outside  values  through  the  senses.  But 
by  senses  we  mean  more  than  Locke  did,  and  the 
average  empiricist  also,  when  using  the  term.  Students 
for  a  long  time  talked  in  terms  of  the  five  senses — 
seeing,  hearing,  feeling,  tasting,  smelling,  but  psychol¬ 
ogy  to-day  is  pointing  to  the  presence  and  activity  of 
additional  senses  such  as  temperature,  equilibrium, 
pain,  kingesthetic,  and  organic.  The  senses  are  usually 
divided  into  two  groups,  seeing  and  hearing  called  the 
higher  or  defining  senses  and  all  the  rest  the  lower 
senses.  All  define  more  or  less  and  all  are  also  inti¬ 
mate,  but  seeing  positioned  at  one  extreme  is  the  most 
defining  and  the  organic  at  the  other  extreme  as  the 
most  intimate.  It  is  in  the  latter  group  then,  the 
lower,  that  we  look  for  those  senses  which  work  most 


POSITIVE  VALUES 


175 


intimately,  reporting  their  material  immediately  to 
consciousness,  and  are  thus  called  intimate  or  imme¬ 
diate  senses.  For  instance,  if  we  go  into  a  warm  room 
the  warmth  is  immediately  perceived,  because  the  im¬ 
pressions  picked  up  by  the  temperature  sense  receptors 
are  immediately  reported  to  headquarters  for  evalua¬ 
tion.  Consequently  it  is  these  intimate  senses  which 
mean  so  much  in  the  immediate  apprehension  of  values, 
the  organic  and  kinaesthetic  figuring  most  largely  in 
the  handling  of  the  “material”  which  is  organized  into 
religious  and  artistic  experience.  For  years  Professor 
Starbuck  has  pointed  to  the  significance  of  the  intimate 
senses  as  sources  of  wisdom  in  art  and  religion.  Our 
position  here  is  that  by  means  of  these  intimate  senses 
truth  is  immediately  apprehended,  that  these  are  the 
avenues  through  which  values  move,  the  means  by 
which  “energy  flows  in.”  This  is  not  altogether  dif¬ 
ferent  from  saying  that  “our  minds  and  sense  organs 
are  genuine  functional  parts  of  the  real  world.” 5 
Here  then  we  might  see  a  possible  scientific  basis  for 
the  intuitive  activities  in  which  people  have  always 
just  naturally  believed. 

Keeping  in  mind  our  representation  that  genuine 
values  reside  in  the  religious  aspects  of  personal  re¬ 
lationships  the  question  may  be  raised  at  this  time  as 
to  whether  the  senses,  particularly  the  intimate  senses, 
do  figure  as  conspicuously  in  religious  experience  as 
has  been  suggested.  As  an  answer  to  this  imagined 
question  we  shall  now  examine  some  representative 
religious  data  as  found  in  songs,  prayers,  testimonies, 
literature,  and  religious  practices.  Here  we  shall  prob- 

5  Leighton,  The  Field  of  Philosophy,  p.  355. 


176 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


ably  see  all  the  senses  at  work,  not  simply  receiving 
impressions  but  seemingly  trying  for  satisfactions, 
reaching  out  for  value  contacts.  And  in  the  realiza¬ 
tions  of  these  outreachings  we  have  the  raw  material, 
the  bulk  of  content  which  later  culminates  in  complete 
religious  experience.  It  would  be  possible  to  arrange 
abundant  evidence  but  only  a  few  illustrations  will  be 
presented  under  each  head. 

1.  Seeing.  “I  shall  see  him  face  to  face.”  “When 
by  his  grace  I  shall  look  on  his  face.”  “Beloved,  now 
are  we  the  sons  of  God,  and  it  doth  not  yet  appear 
what  we  shall  be :  but  we  know  that  when  he  shall  ap¬ 
pear,  we  shall  be  like  him;  for  we  shall  see  him  as  he 
is.”  Here  are  met  those  who  are  primarily  visual- 
minded.  For  them  supreme  satisfaction  seems  to  be  in 
seeing  Jesus. 

2.  Hearing.  Such  expressions  as  “the  voice  of 
God,”  “the  still  small  voice,”  “angels’  voices,”  “I  can 
hear  my  Saviour  calling”  show  a  very  impressionable 
sense  of  hearing. 

3.  Feeling  (touch).  “The  touch  of  his  hand  on 
mine.”  “For  she  said  within  herself,  if  I  do  but 
touch  his  garment,  I  shall  be  made  whole.”  “And  they 
besought  him  that  they  might  only  touch  the  border  of 
his  garment :  and  as  many  as  touched  were  made 
whole.”  Also,  we  see  the  activity  of  this  sense  in  the 
general  custom  of  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  ordination 
ceremonies. 

4.  Taste.  “Taste  and  see  that  the  Lord  is  good.” 
The  tasting  of  bread  and  water  at  love  feasts  and 
bread  and  wine  at  sacramental  services.  At  the  old 
Roman  marriage  ceremony  (which  was  religious)  the 


POSITIVE  VALUES 


177 


bride  and  groom  in  the  presence  of  the  gods  of  the 
family  divided  a  cake  of  meal  between  them. 

5.  Smell.  The  general  practice  of  using  flowers  at 
religious  services,  and  often  the  burning  of  incense. 
Some  religious  cults  use  sweet  smelling  fires  “pouring 
on  ghi,  or  liquefied  butter,”  which  is  but  an  attempt, 
conscious  or  unconscious,  to  satisfy  the  sense  of  smell. 

6.  Temperature.  “So  then  because  thou  art  luke¬ 
warm,  and  neither  hot  nor  cold,  I  will  spue  thee  out  of 
my  mouth/’  During  the  conversion  experience  the 
heart  may  become  “strangely  warmed.”  When  attend¬ 
ing  worship  in  which  there  seems  to  be  no  spiritual 
power  we  call  it  a  cold  service,  but  if  there  is  fervor 
and  a  good  spirit  we  say  there  is  warmth  and  probably 
call  the  group  a  warm-hearted  people. 

7.  Pain.  The  idea  that  suffering  is  pleasing  to  the 
gods  has  been  a  universal  belief.  Among  inferior  peo¬ 
ples  some  horrible  practices  have  been  observed,  mak¬ 
ing  pain  the  means  to  divine  blessing.  Even  among 
Christian  people  this  belief  has  been  common,  especially 
with  those  who  practice  the  extreme  self-denial  or  self- 
sacrifice  theory. 

8.  Equilibrium.  “Uphold  me  according  unto  thy 
word.”  “He  will  not  let  me  fall.”  It  is  very  common 
to  hear  people  pray  for  guidance  and  strength  that  they 
may  be  kept  from  falling.  They  do  not  want  to 
waver,  but  are  anxious  to  be  steady  and  solid  like  the 
rock,  unshaken  by  the  storms  of  life. 

9.  Kinsesthetic.  Here  the  sense  receptors  are  in  the 
striped  muscles,  and  especially  in  the  tendons  and 
joints.  Evidences  of  this  sense  at  work  are  seen  in  cer¬ 
tain  customs  during  worship  such  as  clasping  the 


178 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


hands,  bending  the  knees,  closing  the  eyes,  and  in  the 
old  custom  of  dancing  before  the  Lord.  The  experi¬ 
ence  of  the  man  may  be  quoted  here  who  when  happy 
said,  “Brethren,  I  feel — I  feel — I  feel — I  feel — I  feel 
— I  can’t  tell  you  how  I  feel,  but  O  I  feel!  I  feel!”  6 
While  feeling  is  probably  fundamental  in  religious  ex¬ 
perience,  it  seems  true  that  it  was  playing  too  large  a 
part  in  this  case.  And  yet  we  cannot  question  the  fact 
that  this  man  did  “feel,”  and  felt  something  down  in 
his  very  “bones.”  Many  people  in  their  richest  ex¬ 
periences  close  their  eyes  and  ears  to  everything  and 
just  want  to  “feel”  the  values.  In  dealing  with  illus¬ 
trations  like  these  in  which  extreme  feeling  is  stressed, 
it  is  impossible  to  draw  a  definite  line  of  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  organic  and  kinsesthetic. 

io.  Organic,  especially  hunger  and  thirst.  Here  the 
sense  receptors  are  in  the  smooth  muscles  of  the  body, 
such  as  the  stomach,  intestines,  heart,  lungs,  veins,  etc. 
Manifestations  of  the  activity  of  this  sense  are  very 
numerous.  “Bread  of  Life,”  “Drinking  at  the  foun¬ 
tain,”  “Feasting  in  Beulahland,”  “Hunger  and  thirst 
after  righteousness.”  “As  the  hart  panteth  after  the 
water  brooks,  so  panteth  my  soul  after  thee,  O  God.” 
“Break  thou  the  Bread  of  life,  dear  Lord  to  me,  etc.” 
“Bread  of  heaven,  feed  me  till  I  want  no  more.”  At¬ 
tention  is  also  called  to  the  practice  of  associating 
feasts  with  religious  festivals.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
custom  with  many  people  of  fasting  before  certain 
religious  periods  may  show  a  conscious  effort  to  deny 
the  desires  of  the  organic  sense. 

It  seems  clear  from  the  foregoing  that  all  the  senses 

c  Coe,  The  Spiritual  Life,  p.  215. 


POSITIVE  VALUES 


179 


figure  in  religious  experience,  the  intimate  senses,  par¬ 
ticularly  the  organic,  being  the  most  active  and  making 
possible  immediate  contacts  with  values.  A'nd  just  the 
same  as  a  work  of  art  may  be  considered  first  class 
when  it  appeals  to  a  large  number  of  the  senses,  so  a 
religious  experience  is  richest  when  the  whole  group 
of  senses  play  a  part.  But  the  criticism  may  be  made 
that  religious  experiences  are  transient,  one  followed 
by  another,  and  since  it  has  been  said  that  values  re¬ 
side  within  the  religious  aspects  of  human  experience, 
then  as  far  as  the  individual  is  concerned  values  must 
also  be  transient  and  not  abiding.  As  an  answer  to 
this  anticipated  criticism  it  can  be  said  that  it  is  in  a 
study  of  the  psychology  of  the  function  of  the  image  in 
religious  experience  that  a  clew  is  obtained  as  to  the 
possible  conservation  of  these  positive  values.  So  im¬ 
portant  is  the  part  played  by  the  image  in  religious  ap¬ 
preciation  that  it  seems  the  reality  of  religion  would  be 
seriously  curtailed  without  the  faculty  of  imagination; 
without  the  function  of  the  image  only  the  religious 
experience  of  the  present  moment,  that  which  is  im¬ 
mediately  ours,  could  be  enjoyed.  We  have  here  the 
means  by  which  the  religious  phenomena  which  we  have 
seen,  heard,  felt,  etc.,  can  be  experienced  over  again. 
And  what  holds  good  for  religion  in  respect  to  the 
image  will  apply  to  art  as  well,  but  as  has  been  said, 
eternal  values  seem  to  transcend  mere  beauty  whose 
purpose  is  only  to  please. 

What  is  meant  by  image  and  imagination  and  what 
is  the  specific  part  which  the  image  seems  to  play  in 
this  program?  Gordon  says  “the  image  is  the  visual, 
auditory,  etc.,  quality  of  consciousness  which  accom- 


180 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


panies  the  idea  or  emotional  theme  which  the  artist  has 
in  mind.”  The  idea  or  theme  then  is  that  for  which 
the  image  stands.  Again,  “imagination  is  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  objects  or  qualities  which  have  no  pres¬ 
ent  sensory  stimulus  to  excite  them  in  the  mind.”  In 
our  use  here  of  the  term  image  we  are  following  the 
general  rule.  It  does  seem  inconsistent,  however,  to 
use  the  term  in  such  a  general  way.  When  dealing  with 
the  sense  of  sight,  it  is  all  right,  but  it  would  seem  bet¬ 
ter  to  use  the  term  impression,  rather  than  image, 
when  dealing  with  the  other  senses.  Different  types 
of  imagery  characterize  different  individuals,  accord¬ 
ing  to  which  of  the  senses  are  most  active.  Some  per¬ 
sons  experience  visual,  auditory,  taste,  motor,  etc., 
images,  this  being  determined  by  whether  they  think  in 
terms  of  what  they  have  seen,  heard,  felt,  etc.  This  is 
the  reason  why  different  arts  and  certain  religious  phe¬ 
nomena,  and  different  representations  of  the  same 
things  appeal  more  to  different  individuals.  The  image 
or  impression  seems  to  stand  as  the  intermediary  agency 
between  the  individual  and  objective  values.  It  is  not 
an  end  in  itself;  it  is  just  a  means  to  realization  and 
conservation.  It  is  the  means  by  which  one  religious 
value  can  be  related  to  other  situations,  each  image 
becoming  something  of  a  seed  image  lending  worth  to 
those  experiences  which  follow. 

All  images  have  their  source  within  the  realm  of  ex¬ 
perience;  that  is,  all  our  images  seem  to  partake  of  the 
facts  which  we  have  experienced.  The  sensory  stimu¬ 
lus  may  not  be  present  to  excite  the  mind  into  a  con¬ 
sciousness  of  objects  or  qualities  and  yet  this  sensory 


POSITIVE  VALUES 


181 


stimulus  has  been  experienced  some  time  in  the  past 
and  its  influence  stored  away  for  future  reference.  In 
the  case  of  productive  or  creative  imagination  the 
image  is  probably  the  result  both  of  sensation  and  re¬ 
flection,  the  sensation,  however,  being  the  occasion  for 
the  appearance  of  the  reflection.  This  is  what  Locke 
would  call  the  “outer  and  inner  perception.”  Although 
reflection  cooperates  in  the  creation  of  the  image  the 
original  stimulus  comes  from  the  outside.  It  seems 
that  in  creative  imagination  the  mind  simply  assem¬ 
bles  the  images  from  parts  which  it  has  seen,  heard, 
etc.,  at  some  previous  time.  There  is  a  demand  upon 
the  imagination  in  every  perception.  It  is  here  in  this 
fact  that  we  can  see  the  difference  between  a  realistic 
and  an  imaginative  piece  of  work,  the  latter  often  prov¬ 
ing  itself  to  be  a  stimulating  factor.  In  art  the  average 
mind  does  not  like  to  have  a  representation  try  to  tell 
too  much;  it  likes  to  have  its  imagination  challenged. 

We  have  mentioned  all  the  senses  as  playing  their 
part  in  the  handling  of  religious  phenomena,  but  the 
greater  stream  of  meaningful  images  comes  in  through 
the  intimate  senses.  Here  immediate  contact  is  estab¬ 
lished  with  values  and  the  image  becomes  the  means 
by  which  the  raw  material  of  values  is  accumulated 
and  reused  from  time  to  time.  As  has  been  said,  the 
image  or  impression  is  not  an  end  in  itself.  Religion 
would  probably  be  dead,  as  far  as  the  individual  is  con¬ 
cerned,  if  its  stimulus  stopped  here,  even  with  the 
images  of  the  higher  senses.  Genuine  religious  appre¬ 
ciation  is  hardly  possible  until  the  “material”  has  been 
lifted  to  the  level  of  judgment.  The  experiences  must 


182 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY 


have  a  refining  agency  which  harvests  up  the  meanings 
and  values,  and  this  condition  is  met  in  the  fact  that 
all  sense  images  in  religious  and  artistic  appreciation 
are  reported  to  the  higher  centers  of  the  central  nervous 
system  for  complete  satisfaction  and  evaluation.  This 
is  to  say  that  the  impressions  of  the  different  senses 
converge  toward  one  common  meeting  place  and  these 
different  reports  are  organized  as  one  judgment  of 
value.  In  other  words,  for  a  religious  experience  to 
be  complete,  to  reach  the  peak  of  value,  the  impres¬ 
sions  must  be  lifted  out  of  subconsciousness  and  be¬ 
come  a  part  of  consciousness.  This  means  that  judg¬ 
ment  and  acceptance  precede  complete  appreciation.  It 
seems  to  be  in  some  such  procedure  as  this  where  the 
factors  which  figure  in  religion  cooperate  harmoniously 
toward  a  state  of  whole-mindedness  that  the  individ¬ 
ual  comes  into  the  fullest  realization  of  the  positive 
values  in  human  experience.  This  attitude  ties  real 
values  to  the  whole  mental  life  of  the  person,  which  is 
equivalent  to  saying  that  the  human  mind  as  a  whole, 
the  highest  organization  of  final  reality,  participates 
in  those  relationships  which  make  ultimate  truths  pos¬ 
sible. 

In  conclusion  then,  when  the  higher  desires  and  mo¬ 
tives  of  the  self  are  realized  in  the  world  of  action,  a 
world  of  relationships  between  persons  and  the  Su¬ 
preme  Person,  positive  values  are  experienced.  In 
terms  of  science,  this  may  be  called  the  highest  good. 
In  terms  of  Biblical  truth,  it  constitutes  the  essential 
qualifications  for  full  citizenship  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  This  is  genuine  religious  experience  and  is 
the  philosophy  taught  and  practiced  by  Jesus  in  every- 


POSITIVE  VALUES 


183 


day  life,  making  it  seem  very  true  that  Christian  Reve¬ 
lation  itself  lends  definite  encouragement  toward  belief 
in  the  rightness  of  evaluating  facts  on  the  basis  of 
personal  needs,  fundamental  in  all  of  which  program 
is  the  energetic  interpretation  of  life  and  the  world. 


THE  END 


•- 


’ 


r  m 


. 

" 


j 


:< 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1  1012  01015  1373 


